For All That Have An Opinion on Global Warming.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street

You want fast, bubba? I'll give you fast:

"Based on the views of Jim McCanney and Tom Beardon, I think we're spending too much money on things we don't need. like science education programs."


Off the street, I am not sure what you are tryng to say here can you elaborate?
Are you implying that I need more science education? Or that the person whos post I am referring to does?
Forgive me if I was sarcastic but I hardly thnk either hollywood or Whitley strieber qualifies as a reference. To be quite honest I can't even tell which of the two I would consider to be more imagnative when it comes to fiction.




posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 02:27 AM
link   
mwm1331

I thought OTS was providing an example: maybe Jim McCanney and Tom Beardon were debunking their own theory.

I don't know who they are.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Hey starwars51,

The warming of the Earth has been the subject of intense debate and concern for many scientists, policy-makers, and citizens for at least the past decade. Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, a new report by a committee of the National Research Council, characterizes the global warming trend over the last 100 years, and examines what may be in store for the 21st century and the extent to which warming may be attributable to human activity. The committee was made up of 11 of the nation's top climate scientists, including seven members of the National Academy of Sciences, one of whom is a Nobel Prize winner.

The Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, and surface temperatures have risen at a substantially greater rate than average in the past two decades. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely because of human activities, for the most part. But it is not known how much of the temperature rise to date is the result of human activities, the report says.

Looks like I need to sell my book on amazon/ any takers?

I included the freon story hoping someone might be able add to it ,wether it was true or not. As I said I heard it from a friend who is not a known fibber.

The report does indicate that the warming of the earth will have different climatic changes to different regions of the earth. When I lived in Juneau, alaska in 1991 we had the record for maximum rainfall at 85.15 inches, the average is 54 inches per year. Here in Ohio the last 3 years have been in the top 10 wettest years in recorded history. We have had 10 plus inches of rain in January already.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Sorry, guys. Tom Beardon and Jim McCanney are two of the biggest pseudo-scientific hoaxters on the scene. It is precisely because science and technology are now de-emphasized in the public school systems that so many well-meaning but science-deprived folks fall for some of the hogwash you see around here.

The thing that separates Beardon and McCanney from guys like Rense and, say, Zecheriah Sitchin, is that the former two actually have some scientific / technical credentials.

McCanney styles himself as "Professor" McCanney, although what he doesn’t say is that his closest approach toward a professorship was that he was a graduate lecturer in math (with a master's degree) at some college twenty years back. He left academia quite some time ago (I don't know what the circumstances were) and is now a massage therapist.

Tom Beardon is a retired light colonel in the Army, and a graduate of Command & General Staff College; they do not send complete bozos to an outfit like that. He also has an undergraduate degree in math from a small school and an MS in nuclear engineering from Georgia institute of technology. He doesn't have a PhD because he hasn't had a thesis accepted, although he's submitted one. But still he's not the run-of-the-mill conspiracy weenie who gets his theories from the public library and conspiracy sites.

Ironically, most people into the conspiracy business disregard mainstream science as being all part of the Huge Secret Plot when they don't agree with it; yet, when they find someone who does advance crackpot theories, they tend to jump up and down and anoint these people as their exemplars ("Well, I know it's true, because Bearden says it is and he's a scientist!")

Yet just about every mainstream journal or investigative group blows both
McCanney and Bearden off as nut-bars, whose theories simply don't make sense, whose experiments can't be replicated, and whose backup math is just plain wrong.

Now I admit that the scientific and educational establishment is a bit close-minded, and tend to look askance at anyone who doesn't have a union card (PhD) and who hasn't done a good apprenticeship (taught at a university and/or gotten a bunch of grants). Sometimes they annoy me.

But the establishment has to do that, just like they have to review any article submitted to their journals, to make sure that frauds and charlatans don't get a bunch of scientists buying into a hypothesis that is sooner or later proven wrong. Of course, the Beardenites and the McCanneyites see this as just one more "conspiracy to keep the truth hidden" -- as if real scientists could ever agree to such a thing!

Anyway, sorry for rambling on, but I wanted you to understand the background for my post. Pseudo-scientific hoaxers and frauds are a tremendous annoyance to me, which is why I spend a lot more time than I’d like debunking some of the more insidious frauds, like the Hollow Earth or "chem-trails".



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
The report does indicate that the warming of the earth will have different climatic changes to different regions of the earth. When I lived in Juneau, alaska in 1991 we had the record for maximum rainfall at 85.15 inches, the average is 54 inches per year. Here in Ohio the last 3 years have been in the top 10 wettest years in recorded history. We have had 10 plus inches of rain in January already.


Excellent point, records have been breaking all over the place, and we KNOW that governments aren't behind flawed information. Hurricanes? Anyone remember a few of those? ya.

And I would like to point out why this topic was created. And that was because there's a theory. If water gets dumped intot he ocean and screws up the ocean currents, what's to happen? The Gulf Stream almost, if it didn't temporarily fail this summer.

I am only in high school, but taking every science available, which will be 6 credits by the time I go to university, so I think science- LIKE if that counts for anything and THIS MAKES SENSE. So I was looking for other people's thoughts, not opinions, because I know all those, you think inconclusively, and that doesn't work.

I've heard a few posts about conspiracies and let me say that we have to start thinking for ourselves, and I believe science can help us. Just sitting around saying it might be true is setting yourselves right up for them to walk all over you.

FACT: records are breaking all over the place.
FACT: the gulf stream is in trouble.
FACT: we must act upon something.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Magickalworld says:

stuff

Excellent review of the book. And more important is the detail that Dr. Crichton has gone into to come up with a politically oh-so-incorrect (yet very sound) evaluation of the future of the environment vis-a-vis global warming.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Here is a Dr crichton forum website;

www.crichton-official.com...


E_T

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I agree fully with Off_The_Street.

I'm also fast aproaching conclusion that biggest hoax of all time is claimed intelligence of human.
For most people head seems to be just a stand for hat because they follow without questioning every possible self proclaimed prophet and leader... and no matter how many times all these alchemists making gold from junk metals, perpetual motion machine inventors and others have been wrong no one remembers that.
Maybe that's reason behind why spam is so common and profitable for it's senders: People just don't think and believe all claims about wonder medicines etc!


"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-Douglas Adams

"Most of one's life is one prolonged effort to prevent oneself thinking."
-Aldous Huxley

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
-Albert Einstein



But back to topic...

Here's really good article considering Day After Tomorrow.
news.nationalgeographic.com...


And here's stuff about changes in climate in last 420 000 years.


In June of 1999 the latest ice core data from the Vostok site in Antarctica were published by Petit et al in the British journal Nature. These new data extended the historical record of temperature variations and atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane and other greenhouse trace gases (GTG) back to 420,000 years before present (BP).

Given all the new ice core data, what changes can we anticipate for our climate? If CO2 has increased over the past 150 years as much as it normally increases over thousands of years leading up to an interglacial phase (about 80 ppmv), then we could expect as much as a corresponding 10-12C increase in temperature. But if half the historical temperature increases have been due to orbital forcing and other factors, then we should expect an increase of "only" about 5-6C, or 9-11F.

Most computer models don't predict either of these magnitudes of temperature change for the new century. They typically cite evidence indicating that overall global temperatures have not changed as much as polar temperatures, where the ice cores were taken, and that increases of only 2-3C should be anticipated. Unfortunately, new evidence from high-elevation tropical ice cores indicates that this is not really the case. The latest data show that the amplitude of sub-polar temperature changes has been in the range of 8-12C, which is not all that different from the 10-12C found at the poles.

www.daviesand.com...
Other one from same subject.
www.usgcrp.gov...

Now remember very fress news about global dimming caused by soot, ash and aerosol particle emissions. Before industrial revolution there wasn't much of those in atmosphere so that might well explain why current temperature increase isn't as big as previous increases from same greenhouse gasses.
www.bbc.co.uk...



Here's very goos study from signs of warming in arctic areas and its effects in future:

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
amap.no...



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Thanks for the URL for the Crichton forum, Crypto; it's a good resource.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Yes, excellent national geographic link, thanks!

They talk about 1) the ocean currents, and support that theory, but they don't take the EFFECTS of it into effect, can we brainstorm on it? What if the ocean currents fail.

2) They talked about the "pulling down of supercool air". I personally couldn't fit the science behind that, but I DO know from The Coming Global Superstorm that the greenhouse gases are apparently creating a barrior, where down here, it warms, and up there, it cools...and FAST! they were saying -50 degrees fahrenheit a year! (now, who can believe that, but even if it's on fifth of that, THATS A LOT!). Now, that's a big difference, and if there was something that could create a link, then the supercooled air thing would come into effect.

and....

3) The hurricane thingy. lol. They never said it was like a hurricane, they said it was hurricane-LIKE! lol. But anyway, if a hurricane reached from "sea to shining sea" would it not be able to support itself? (even though this is ridiculous because they said it was forming up north where the waters would have DROPPED in temperature due to the failing ocean currents).





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join