reply to post by wirehead
I also know that there's been no significant policy change regarding carbon reductions, none of these big evil scary taxes, and no major shift
away from fossil fuels.
Surely worldwide efforts toward efficient hybrids or totally electric cars, solar photovoltaic cells being now available to low-income class (but
lacking a bit of effeciency - the technology is not perfect yet), Quebec's totality of electricity (including an entire major world city, Montreal)
being generated from water, and implantation of wind fields in worldwide valleys does not count? And yes, I don't know about you, but here in Canada
we do have a new tax about carbon consumption during shipping. That means we have to pay for the emission of carbon which the guys made when they
shipped the item. Sure, it's not big, it look innocent, but once the government will push global warming theory at the extreme, this will give the
government the possibilty of rising this tax up without people complaining too much - the tax rise will be "confirmed" as a "necessary step" by
"science". The time when government had to invent an excuse each time it rised taxes will be gone; now the raise will be "scientifically" supported.
Here you see science mingling whith economics.
I have no idea what Al Gore said, and I don't care. But I do know that under Bush's presidency, whitehouse funded research into climate change
was systematically distorted and obscured.
Distorted in what sense? Of course, distortion would be natural since Bush's family was involved in owning an oil industry in the South of USA. And,
to be frank, Bush was crazy. He had a fit over brocolis once (some suggested it was because he had thyroidal problem so he was force-fed brocolis,
which are rich in minerals, as a child, thus his dislike for them), it made it to the news.
You didn't see An Unconventional Truth? You definitively should take a look, see by yourself. Al was a key figure in promoting the theory so that
people start believing in it. He was so convincing I even believed him, myself, before I start thinking about heat reflexion inacuracy, trend
confliction and voluntary omission of information in his movie.
He shows glaciers melting in middle of summer and call it global warming. He puts alot of dramatic tone, he's a good actor. He say he made "terrible
mistakes" as a child, that common people dig the Earth using hundred-thousand dollars machines instead of shuffles, and adds a bit of comedy by
showing a clip from the Simpsons. He say he keeps doing seminars but what he forgot to say is who pay him to do all this travels around the world, and
how much his jumbojet cost to buy, and still cost him each time he fills its tank with polluting gasoline.
I know that the United States refused to ratify the last major attempt at an international climate change policy agreement.
So I don't see how climate science has a stranglehold on our politics. In fact it looks to be the opposite.
You are referring to Kyoto. The reason why US didn't signed it was, the US said, because "we will find our own way to reduce CO2 emissions. " And they
did. While other countries struggled in vain to fufill the irrealistic treaty, California was cleaning itself. It was one of the most polluting
states. Other states followed. California was US's kingdom of cars. Now it's the kingdom of Green (and New Age religion, but that's something else).
But most of the US electricity is still fueling on coal... So does Japan, in which Kyoto was signed.
I see science has to request funds, which means, it could serve as a potential weapon which has the power to back politics. Climatology is no longer
unbiased. NASA tries to convince us NASA is right by feeding us NASA modified data. I see a big bias here.
Since we have agreed that CO2 will block IR emission from the Earth, are you surprised that a satellite would register less IR reaching it from
the Earth following an increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
That's it! So you agree that the amount of heat the satellite detects is not representative of the amount of heat on Earth's surface? That all that
the satelite detects is heat at or outside the CO2 layer?
All of these regional changes in the length and severity of winter are to be expected. You're not also looking at the corresponding increased
severity of summer.
A severe summer? It was snowing in Alberta this summer! Sure, if you live in a desert, summer will be severe - there is no moisture there.
I have no idea about any of this, but none of it relates to the evidence which is what I'm trying to discuss. You could spend all the money in
the world to try to find evidence that the sky isn't blue, but you couldn't actually make it not be blue.
True, but to use your same analogy, You could spend all the money in the world to educate the people in calling "green" everything which is blue. It's
not hard,all you have to do is teach that to kids in schools and invest funds in key media.
My point being, history is always written by the winner. And who are today's winners? Rothschild owns superbanks. I see it completely relevant that we
should investigate fundings or economical strategies when it comes to determine bias of a data source.
You would have to assume that all else remains exactly the same and that every interglacial period should have exactly the same mean
temperature for this to be suggestive of anything.
You're right, that's a fact: No, our current interglacial temperature is not the same as the last interglacials. It's colder than the last
Petit JR, Jouzel J, Raynaud D, Barkov NI, Barnola J-M, Basile I, Bender M, Chappellaz J, Davis M, Delaygue G, Delmotte M, Kotlyakov VM, Legrand
M, Lipenkov VY, Lorius C, Pepin L, Ritz C, Saltzman E, Stievenard M, 1999, Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok
ice core, Antartica, Nature 399: 429-36
During the last four interglacials, going back 420,000 years, the Earth was warmer than it is today.
Speaking as an astronomer, I can tell you that at least some of our climatological research is based on planetary astronomy. I see no major
disagreement with the data. I don't know where you're getting these ideas.
Ah! Another astronomer. Pleased to meet you. So, you were saying you were seeing no major disagreement with the data. Well, I would like to believe
that, but I can't help but see a big disagreement:
-Global Warming Theory states the Earth will undergo local warming due to anthropogenic CO2 which traps the sun's incoming Visible light by reflecting
its energetic impact on Earth's surface back to Earth.
-Astronomical data about the solar system's movement in space states that the sun follows a wave-like orbit which takes it in and out the Milky Way's
nebulous Rift, which is strongly believed to have reduced the amount of IR and Visible light that the Earth received from the sun and thus induced
Global Ice Ages four times in the past, covering New York under gigatons of ice.
It is also stating that the Sun is currently going back in.
-Satelites around Earth is registering the amount of IR which are bounced back to space (where the satelite resides) due to Earth's CO2. In the last
decade this amount dropped and this drop registered on the satelite. Of course that could mean Earth's outgoing IR got more trapped, but it can also
mean the Sun is sending less light in the first place.
And, to conclude: desertification and droughts are also predicted by glaciation. As major and minor inland fluvial and river activity will stop (due
to glacial growth, as in California), some lands which were previously fertile and well-watered will turn to sedimentary sterile zones (deserts). In
other places, as in Canada, Europe and northern USA, temperature drops will induce atmospheric and ground water solidification to snow, hail and ice.
Some desert might actually receive strange precipitation, like when it hailed in Nevada a couple of years ago.
I agree about diminishing our pollution. I agree about finding renewable electricity, and electric cars. In fact it is a priority the government
should really put more energy into. What I don't agree is that CO2 is the cause for a GLOBAL warming (which means, warming the whole globe in one
event). What I don't agree is when we have to pay taxes for a THEORY, for something that might happen, that probably won't... while meanwhile the
government seize this "science"-backed excuse to take more money from our pockets. I feel mainstream climatology's allegiance is not to finding the
truth anymore, but now it's about fabricating a "truth". A "truth" which can be used to make us accept even more restrictions. We were supposed to
live in the land of Freedom... I can't help but see now a similaritude with 1940 Germany, when National Socialist Party "discovered" a "scientific
truth" that Jews were to be eliminated. Those doctors would feel the skull of the people's head and decide if they were OK to pass or not. This skull
thing was unproven science, just vague facts about cranial shape/brain shape relation, yet the installed powers used it, promoted it through its
media, paid a Jew (Warbug) to tell people that this was the way to go, and the rest is history.
edit on 21-10-2012 by swan001 because: (no