|
|
Post by AztecBill on Aug 26, 2009 15:07:07 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 26, 2009 18:02:22 GMT -8
I read some on this today. It would be real interesting to have a modern day trial like the Scopes Trial.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Aug 27, 2009 12:52:13 GMT -8
I read some on this today. It would be real interesting to have a modern day trial like the Scopes Trial. I am now reading that the EPA will do everything they can to avoid that. They know that if the information is looked at today without bias, AGW would not be the conclusion of scientists. There is simply no proof. They rely on computer models that will say what ever they are programmed to say. |
|
cx4
New Recruit
Posts: 21
|
Post by cx4 on Aug 31, 2009 20:08:45 GMT -8
Interesting article by John Coleman. I, too, am skeptical about the global warming theory....that said, I see no reason why we shouldn't make a huge national effort to minimize our use of fossil fuel and move on to other forms of energy. In regards to GW, some Russian scientists claim that there is a danger of a coming ice age....try googling "russian scientists and ice age" for some thought provoking reading. media.kusi.com/documents/SUTHERLAND+INSTITUTE+TALK.docoops, apparently the link isn't complete; cut & paste the address.. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 1, 2009 10:05:37 GMT -8
Interesting article by John Coleman. I, too, am skeptical about the global warming theory....that said, I see no reason why we shouldn't make a huge national effort to minimize our use of fossil fuel and move on to other forms of energy. In regards to GW, some Russian scientists claim that there is a danger of a coming ice age....try googling "russian scientists and ice age" for some thought provoking reading. media.kusi.com/documents/SUTHERLAND+INSTITUTE+TALK.docoops, apparently the link isn't complete; cut & paste the address.. This link should work. starturl.com/iceageI agree about getting alternate fuel but not for GW reason. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 1, 2009 13:38:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 1, 2009 16:00:45 GMT -8
I have held professional level membership in the American Meteorological Society and been honored as the society's Broadcast Meteorologist of the Year. I have predicted the weather daily for 55 years. I read the professional American Meteorological Society publications. I have read and studied the documents of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I am qualified to make the scientific conclusions I have made.
Um, whether or not he is correct, and I'm sort of in-between on this issue, his resume does not qualify him to make "scientific conclusions". I suspect the requirements AMS has now are not the requirements that were in effect when he was given membership since he does not have a degree in meteorology:
In order to acquire a CBM, new applicants must hold a degree in meteorology (or equivalent) from an accredited college/university, pass a written examination, and have their work reviewed to assess technical competence, informational value, explanatory value, and communication skills. All CBMs may retain their certification and display the CBM logo as long as they pay their membership and renewal fees each year and complete a 28 point professional development requirements every five years.
I'm not suggesting that he doesn't know his stuff - he clearly does. I'm just stating that tossing out that certification, that he may have received at a time when the requirements were less than they are now, doesn't help his argument.
=Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 1, 2009 16:05:22 GMT -8
That being the case, Bill, why doesn't someone just sue EPA on their policies? The enviros do that all the time when they believe a policy goes against ESA. Here's the problem from a California perspective. When it comes to CEQA, the courts have consistently found that there are disagreements among scientists and have therefore refused to get involved in trying to determine which scientists are correct or incorrect. It's nonsense to assume that scientists who believe in climate change are afraid to make their case. They make their case constantly in peer reviewed journals. And in any sort of hearing ("trial" is a silly term), those who believe as you do would come out of it thinking that they had been proven correct while those who believe in climate change would come out of it thinking the same thing. Doesn't matter anyway, since there's damn little chance Cap and Trade will pass in the Senate due to Republican lies that it would be the "largest tax increase in history" (CBO respectfully disagrees). I doubt there's enough political will in this Administration to turn it into a fight when there are much greater issues on the table. So it will run its course, with scientists disagreeing until a new paradigm emerges. =Bob |
|
cx4
New Recruit
Posts: 21
|
Post by cx4 on Sept 2, 2009 11:30:16 GMT -8
Yes, John's membership was probably obtained just after the last dinosaur extinction (climate change?). However, he has followed, been exposed to and contributed to the field of climatology for last 55 years. That in itself would qualify him as an expert absent the ancient credential. I really, really hate to bring this up because I despise politics anymore, but what credentials has a well known ex-politician have that enables him to give lectures and write books on the subject? C'mon now, as an intelligent human being, whose opinion would you believe on climatology?...... politics aside.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 2, 2009 14:51:19 GMT -8
Yes, John's membership was probably obtained just after the last dinosaur extinction (climate change?). However, he has followed, been exposed to and contributed to the field of climatology for last 55 years. That in itself would qualify him as an expert absent the ancient credential. I really, really hate to bring this up because I despise politics anymore, but what credentials has a well known ex-politician have that enables him to give lectures and write books on the subject? C'mon now, as an intelligent human being, whose opinion would you believe on climatology?...... politics aside. Your take speaks for itself. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 2, 2009 14:53:08 GMT -8
That being the case, Bill, why doesn't someone just sue EPA on their policies? The enviros do that all the time when they believe a policy goes against ESA. Here's the problem from a California perspective. When it comes to CEQA, the courts have consistently found that there are disagreements among scientists and have therefore refused to get involved in trying to determine which scientists are correct or incorrect. It's nonsense to assume that scientists who believe in climate change are afraid to make their case. They make their case constantly in peer reviewed journals. And in any sort of hearing ("trial" is a silly term), those who believe as you do would come out of it thinking that they had been proven correct while those who believe in climate change would come out of it thinking the same thing. Doesn't matter anyway, since there's damn little chance Cap and Trade will pass in the Senate due to Republican lies that it would be the "largest tax increase in history" (CBO respectfully disagrees). I doubt there's enough political will in this Administration to turn it into a fight when there are much greater issues on the table. So it will run its course, with scientists disagreeing until a new paradigm emerges. =Bob The ability to cross examine is the key. Scientists can make any sort of claims. Being able to cross examine them is the key. The science has turned against those who promote Global Warming as man caused and against those who promote CO2 as the main driver of climate. If the evidence known today was known when this started, very few (if any) scientists would believe in current AGW theory. Just a few of the points that have changed / become known: Historically CO2 does not lead climate change in trails it. When this became known, those who used this as a main proof (Al Gore's movie) say so-what. Long wave radiation leaves the Earth's atmosphere at a rate that corresponds to incoming LWR - not at a declining rate that increased CO2 and AGW theory would dictate. This was proved via a satillete designed to demonstrate a decrease that AGW thought was there. It proved the opposite. AGW went ahead...no problem. The mechanism whereby the sun effects climate change has been shown to be through cloud formation via Cosmic rays. Before it was not known and therefore believed not to exist, except at the fringes. Forcing multiplers were created (out of thin air) based upon increased temperatures. Those fabrications used the logic, "if nothing else is causing warming it must be CO2". Today we have cooling with increased CO2. That places the Forcing multiplers, fabricated in the past, on very shaky ground. Using the same logic today, we would show a negative feedback instead of the 2 to 3 factors established in the past.
The Federal Government has spent $79 Billion in research. That money flows because most believe there is a problem. Without the problem the money dries up. That is the only reason the perception of a problem still exists. Follow the money. Politicians get what they want - more control. Scientists get what they want - money to do research. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 2, 2009 14:59:38 GMT -8
...that said, I see no reason why we shouldn't make a huge national effort to minimize our use of fossil fuel and move on to other forms of energy... You don't? How about cost? What other forms of energy are you talking about? There is no other forms available that can produce energy at sufficient levels. Solar and Wind are pipe dreams. They can not even address the increase in power usage we will see. We should use the cheap forms of energy we have and encourage development of other forms. That means DRILL FOR OIL and create NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS. I would also push for shale oil and liquefied coal. On the research side we need Fusion Power, which could be available by 2030 with a big push. |
|
