Comments on Misinformation about Greenland Glaciers Exposed

Go to SCIENCE 101 - CHICKEN LITTLE'S JOURNAL - Add a comment - Go to Misinformation about Greenland Glaciers Exposed

argee

I am with you all the way my friend power and money / spinner

posted by spinner on October 14, 2007 at 12:02 PM | link to this | reply

Thanks, Xeno, for replying in kind this time...

I don’t disagree that it can’t hurt to “play it safe,” taking precautions when we don’t have all the facts. The problem is, however, that “playing it safe” is not what the alarmists want us to do. Without a shred of evidence to support their dire claims, they propose draconian solutions that will completely disrupt the world economy. At the same time most of them are opponents of increasing our reliance on nuclear power. It simply doesn’t make sense. At least Patrick Moore has embraced the obvious fact that nuclear power will go a long way toward eliminating the CO₂ producing power sources we now use.

You really need to unlink CO₂ levels with atmospheric temperature changes. In the larger historic sense, CO₂ set the Earth up for the mild climate we have. It was like painting a window with opaque paint to lower energy transmission. The first coat is the most important. If you decide to add further coats of paint, their effect on the light transmitted by the window is virtually nothing. The first coat did it all. Just so with our atmosphere. CO₂ rose to a level that gave us a livable climate. Subsequent increases and decreases (yes decreases – they’re in the record) have had virtually no effect on the atmospheric greenhouse. Subsequent temperature variations are entirely attributable to the sun, with obvious exceptions related to heavy, long-term clouding resulting from either volcanic activity or large meteorite strikes.

The real key, however, is to understand the motivation of the people behind the current environmental movement and its global warming agenda. If you haven’t read my book, The Chicken Little Agenda, I recommend you read it, especially the first chapter on the Green Movement, beginning on page 17. You will see that this entire phenomenon really has nothing to do with the environment. It’s an attempted political coup by the same people who failed in the Soviet Union, who are wrecking the economy of Europe, and who have long lusted after power in the United States.

Yes, I know many of the folks in the forefront of the battle honestly believe they are fighting for the survival of the planet. They’re unfortunate dupes of some very cynical, behind-the-scenes people. The facts are there for anyone willing to dig sufficiently deep to find them.

The planet is in no danger, Xeno. As I agreed earlier, “playing it safe” can do no harm, so long as it doesn’t attack the structure of our free society. But if the “danger” really is a myth, if human activity really isn’t putting the Earth in danger, then anything we do to solve this non-problem really is wasted energy that could be put to use more constructively. In other words, “playing it safe” actually may not be the best policy after all. Maybe playing it smart would be a better approach.

posted by arGee on October 14, 2007 at 10:00 AM | link to this | reply

;PROBLEM IS -- YOU READ OTHER DENIERS HERE -- THEIR POSTS

relate to articles that seem to deny that the temperature is rising.

data shows that CO₂levels are increasing, and are much more than at any time in the past 300,00 years at least.

also, when there is talk about the first part of the 20th Century, and temperatures being higher, and inferring that there was no pollution, maybe it well to remember that this was the height of coal burning steam engines, factories, etc., and that there might be a possibility that this particular type of particulate matter that spewed into the air, smudging buildings and producing great amounts of smog and affecting lungs among other things, might have caused the warming -- I say might. I don't think there is data to assess this.

However, we find increasing amounts of human produced pollutants placed in the atmosphere, we find temperatures rising.

My big question here is: Whether or not human activity is causing this phenomenon, do we want to take the chance? Do we want to continue as we have been on the chance that the pollutants entering the atmosphere have no effect on Earth's temperature? Or do we err on the side of caution and reduce emissions?

I would rather err on the side of safety. Not to, and to allow pollutants, and then to discover for sure that they do indeed cause global warming, and it being almost too late to reverse the effects (it's mostly too late already) -- that would be a big mistake.

posted by Xeno-x on October 14, 2007 at 8:40 AM | link to this | reply

We know scientifically, Spinner...

That our global climate is a giant "greenhouse," and that CO₂ plays a vital role. We just don't understand enough about it to make draconian policy decisions. It seems reasonable to reduce CO₂ emissions, so long as those reductions improve our life style and don't cause economic problems. It can't hurt. Building more nuclear power plants is a great idea that is even supported by Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace. There is absolutely no justification, however, for making the drastic changes recommended by Gore and his minions. The actions suggested by Gore and Kyoto are completely unsubstantiated by any credible data. And even if the predictions were accurate (which they absolutely are not), the Kyoto protocol would have virtually no effect on the outcome, but it would have a drastic effect on how we live.

The whole thing really has nothing to do with the climate. It's a push for control and power.

posted by arGee on October 14, 2007 at 6:17 AM | link to this | reply

ARGEE

I will be the first to say that I do not know a lot about the statistics, graphs, charts, all that. I do believe that man him self may have a very small part In global warming but my belief is that it is just a natural occurrence of the earth and sun From the many documentaries I have watched over the past say five to ten years, to me there is no real proof that man is the culprit in this matter. You have to remember when this old world got ready for dinasaurs to be gone it took care of there ass. You reckon those big dinosaurs farting all at the same time might have caused some ozone trouble or maybe it those damn flintstones. Spinner

posted by spinner on October 13, 2007 at 7:24 PM | link to this | reply

You're still missing the point, Xeno...

The question is NOT is there global warming?, but is human activity causing global warming? The evidence clearly shows that there is a slight warming trend. No question about it. The evidence also clearly shows that this warming is NOT being driven by CO₂ increases, but rather is the result of the variability of our sun, which currently is a bit hotter than average, coupled with a higher level of sun spot activity. This results in (1), increased radiative warmth from the sun directly, and (2) an increase in charged particles from the sun which, in turn, increases the protective effect of the van Allen belts around the Earth (because they capture more charged particles), which reduces the number of cosmic rays impinging on the atmosphere resulting in less clouds, and thus increased warming.

Once again, Xeno, this is not somebody's conjecture. This is hard, cold fact, developed by astrophysicists in Denmark and confirmed in Israel, the United States, Canada, and other places.

Another interesting comment about the graph you posted below regarding the extent of Arctic ice in the last couple of years. Here is another graph produced by the Lamont Observatory, one of the foremost Arctic research labs in he world. This graph shows the Arctic temperatures back to 1590. Note especially the temperatures in the late 1930s – obviously higher than current temperatures. A bit of research will show you that the arctic ice cover was also shrinking as it is today. The big point, however, is that CO2 levels were significantly lower than now. On the other hand, if you check solar activity and especially sun spot activity in the late 1930s, you will discover that they both were about what the are now, and much higher than in the preceding and following years.