Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Rick Moran

Bio

April 13, 2014 - 9:49 am

What’s even more dubious than claims of catastrophic warming? Claims that scientists know what to do about it.

The IPCC released a report warning that unless a “rapid shift” to green energy is undertaken, we’re all going to die…or, something.

And even that may not be enough. The group is saying that we “might even need to enlist controversial technologies that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”

We’ll get started right away on those gigantic atmospheric scoops to remove all those offensive greenhouse gases.

It’s more of the same from the IPCC, with a little more hysteria to get our juices flowing.

USA Today:

“There is a clear message from science: To avoid dangerous interference with the climate system, we need to move away from business as usual,” said Germany’s Ottmar Edenhofer of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, who co-chaired the IPCC report, the third in a series released in the past year. The Working Group III report, written by 235 scientists from 57 countries, looks at myriad ways to fight climate change and serves as a potential road map for policymakers who plan to negotiate a new climate treaty next year in Paris.

“If we do nothing, temperatures will continue to rise,” co-author Leon Clarke, a scientist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, said from Berlin after wrapping up a week of discussions there to finalize the report’s wording. “It’s not necessarily a phaseout of fossil fuels,” he said, but rather “a phaseout” of power plants and other facilities that don’t capture the carbon they emit.

Holding emission increases to 3.6 degree Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels — a goal sought in international agreements — will require “heroic efforts” and a “massive” shift in the energy sector, says another U.S. co-author, David Victor, professor of international relations at the University of California, San Diego. “It’s doable in theory … but it will be extremely difficult.”

Despite efforts to mitigate climate change, the report says global greenhouse gas emissions rose 2.2% annually in the past decade — nearly twice the annual rate of 1.3% from 1970 to 2000. It says fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes, which rose as the global population and economy grew, accounted for 78% of the emissions’ increase between 1970 and 2010. It says about half of cumulative man-made carbon emissions since 1750 has occurred in the last 40 years.

The IPCC report says delaying action will only escalate the costs of transitioning to energy that emits less or zero greenhouse gases. It doesn’t endorse any single approach but cites the value of planting forests, boosting energy efficiency and — by 2050 — at least tripling the share of energy from zero-carbon sources such as nuclear, solar and wind.

It also points to more ambitious measures such as “bio-energy with carbon capture and storage” or BECCS, in which power plants produce fuel by burning biomass — trees, plant waste, wood chips — then capture and store the CO2 emissions underground. Victor says BECCS holds appeal for the future because it produces energy while actually reducing emissions.

So we denude the planet of trees to save us from global warming? What’s not to like?

In truth, there is no proof — experimental proof, mathematical proof, or proof via any known scientific process — that any of these “solutions” will work. Models may be suggestive that reducing emissions will mitigate climate change, but do we invest trillions of dollars into marginal technologies based on modelling? Given the IPCC’s track record of models predicting temperature rise, perhaps we ought to try a little harder to gather hard evidence of possible success before going off half-cocked.

Besides, reducing man’s imprint on the climate may not be enough. Perhaps the scientists could invent a machine that shuts down volcanoes. It would probably be easier than trying to run a modern economy on solar and wind power.

But this is not about the economy. It’s about control — and enriching people like IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri who is massively invested in green energy schemes.

All in a day’s work for the IPCC.

Rick Moran is PJ Media's Chicago editor and Blog editor at The American Thinker. He is also host of the"RINO Hour of Power" on Blog Talk Radio. His own blog is Right Wing Nut House.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Okay, so I'm spamming this.

After reading Jonah Goldberg’s recent explanation of his recent column, the essence of which is that when religion is excised idols take its place; specifically in the West, ‘science’. Now I have a profound respect for science: not only is it the out-growth of Biblical and Christian thought, but, more personally, my father was a scientist, and if there was one thing I got from him was a reverence for the truth, and the reality-based observation of natural reactions and the theorizing about the nature of reality that comes out of consistently observing repeatable identical experiences – the so-called empirical method. (I would also add that my father held the view that his supervisor, while being a relatively good supervisor, was less capable as a scientist, despite his PhD; and would often publish papers with known errors, so that he could later publish a correction, giving him another published paper to his credit, according to which his pay scale rose.)

And I wondered where this drive to fill the void left by rejecting religion might ever come from, if in fact there is no God and there never was one to ponder. Religionists will say it came from the nature of man as God created him, and is inseparable from man’s existence; and yet atheists will say that religions, and all individual religious impulses, are the result of attempts of the mind to mitigate the emotional and mental pains of life, or other psychic attempts to distill the juice of hope to enjoy in our off moments. One may ask: Why must the human mind defend itself from anything? And Christians would respond, because human life has value and emotions matter; and the atheist would say that emotions just happened that way, sort of like the Big Bang, out of nothing and with no design or overarching purpose; or otherwise put, religion produced an evolutionary advantage, to continuing the species, and making it more successful – it must have provided such an advantage, since it seems ubiquitous in all cultures.

Of course, atheists would say that there is no longer any need for such a thing now that science has progressed so far and has taught us so much; but this does not explain the deviation from scientific explanation of things, in which for example, we are told, not by a scientist but by a politician, that global warming (global cooling, global climate change) is settled science, and it is a fact (period).

Science says that many of the world’s species are endangered due to man’s industrial activities, and so we respond with appropriate obedience and stop what we are doing and devise laws and geographic safe zones, and curtail industrial activity to protect them. But when science tells us that various birds, from the bald eagle to the woodpecker, are so endangered that to possess a century-old stuffed eagle is illegal, or to rescue and rehabilitate a woodpecker in a bird cage will bring the state police banging on your daughter’s bedroom to stop it; yet wind farms and solar energy complexes bludgeon and incinerate these very same birds in vast number, and we excuse it entirely. And science tells us that the desert turtle is endangered and so we throw the cattle off of the turtle reservations that the cattle have grazed for millennia (without endangering the turtle), all the while we are slaughtering the very same species elsewhere for overpopulation. The delta smelt is potentially endangered in one far-off bay, and so we close down centuries of agriculture to protect it (I wonder what the dried and dying plants are saying about that).

It is said that we must not reject a religion because of the misuse of it, but science seems a fickle god indeed when we use it as the reason for shaping our human culture and society rather than as a means to perpetuate it.

And I’m still waiting for the 10-page irrefutable evidence-based foot-noted report on how we know without a doubt that the earth is warming; that it is anthropogenic; how we know the computer models are accurate; and how we know that one policy or another will produce any results and will in the end benefit mankind.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Amidst the Bundy ranch thing I read that Dingy wants to re-purporse Yucca Mountain from nuclear waste storage to CO2 storage.

What an absolute moron.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
It is impossible to provide a mitigation effort to something that is not measured.

Since the problem/risk/threat is not measured and a propaganda farce, the steps taken against it cannot be measured either.

I would like to see the measurements and actual numbers of how the closing of 19 power plants in Ohio reduced c02 emissions, cleaned the air, stopped asthma, saved the children and stopped climate warming.

Meanwhile, I am being asked to go to DC to assist in defining a plan to address the rolling brown outs and interruption of power supply. I'm not going.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (65)
All Comments   (65)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
During the nattering about global cooling in the 1970s, some scientists pointed with alarm to ice buildup at the South Pole and claimed that all the added weight could knock the Earth off its axis. The buildup had a serious kernel of truth because flagpoles planted at the pole during the International Geophysical Year in 1957–1958 had indeed been almost buried in ice over the intervening 20 years—10 feet of buildup.

One solution these scientists proposed was to sprinkle loads of soot over the ice at the pole to allow the sun to melt as much of it as possible. Please don't laugh too hard.

How many of these same scientists later jumped on the global warming bandwagon...?
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html
SpaceX proposed - not yet real
Costs to launch to a 200 mile high orbit (cost to escape earths gravity will be much higher because the additional fuel needs to lift the payload plus the extra weight of the additional fuel).

Delta 4 Heavy - $19 million/ton
Falcon Heavy - $1.9 million per ton

In 2011 the US had 72,000 tons of nuclear waste.
Sequestering is likely to be cheaper than trying to launch it into space.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
And what is the cost of getting, say, one ton of spent reactor core almost into an escape trajectory?

35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
solar activity , earth wobble , human contribution is minor
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Meanwhile, all the people that work in Unified Nutland (UN) are jetting around, driving around, burning lights, running computers, etc., on an industrial scale.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERIA: A RETROSPECTIVE
At the Telegraph, Christopher Booker provides a succinct narrative of the rise and fall of global warming alarmism:

When future generations come to look back on the alarm over global warming that seized the world towards the end of the 20th century, much will puzzle them as to how such a scare could have arisen. They will wonder why there was such a panic over a 0.4 per cent rise in global temperatures between 1975 and 1998, when similar rises between 1860 and 1880 and 1910 and 1940 had given no cause for concern. They will see these modest rises as just part of a general warming that began at the start of the 19th century, as the world emerged from the Little Ice Age, when the Earth had grown cooler for 400 years.

They will be struck by the extent to which this scare relied on the projections of computer models, which then proved to be hopelessly wrong when, in the years after 1998, their predicted rise in temperature came virtually to a halt. But in particular they will be amazed by the almost religious reverence accorded to that strange body, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which by then will be recognised as having never really been a scientific body at all, but a political pressure group.

Booker notes how the IPCC’s Summaries for Policymakers–the only parts of the IPCC’s reports that journalists read–have been wholly unscientific, political documents:

Five times between 1990 and 2014 the IPCC published three massive volumes of technical reports – another emerged last week – and each time we saw the same pattern. Each was supposedly based on thousands of scientific studies, many funded to find evidence to support the received view that man-made climate change was threatening the world with disaster – hurricanes, floods, droughts, melting ice, rising sea levels and the rest. But each time what caught the headlines was a brief “Summary for Policymakers”, carefully crafted by governments and a few committed scientists to hype up the scare by going much further than was justified by the thousands of pages in the technical reports themselves.

Each time it would emerge just how shamelessly these Summaries had distorted the actual evidence, picking out the scary bits, which themselves often turned out not to have been based on proper science at all. The most glaring example was the IPCC’s 2007 report, which hit the headlines with those wildly alarmist predictions that the Himalayan glaciers might all be gone by 2035; that global warming could halve African crop yields by 2050; that droughts would destroy 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest. Not until 2010 did some of us manage to show that each of these predictions, and many more, came not from genuine scientific studies but from scaremongering propaganda produced by green activists and lobby groups (shown by one exhaustive analysis to make up nearly a third of all the IPCC’s sources).

The warmmongers’ con game continues, but most people aren’t falling for it. If Gallup is to be believed, global warming is low on the list of Americans’ environmental concerns. That’s a good thing: the Democrats had hoped to ram cap and trade through Congress on the basis of hysterical predictions, and then, when those predictions didn’t come true, claim credit for having forestalled disaster. But that hope has been frustrated, and the models’ predictions have been falsified with no faux contribution from statist environmental policies.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/global-warming-hysteria-a-retrospective.php
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
“might even need to enlist controversial technologies that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”

You mean planting a tree?
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Removing useless breathers?
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
I invoke the precautionary principle. None of these "solutions" should be implemented until they have been proven with absolute certainty to be 100% safe.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
The question being are the solutions cover for a more insidious root cause. We have hacks stating that this is 200 year old proven science....what science stands for that long....only the most obvious. Living near the great lakes, one gets an appreciation for the role that water ( as a heat sink) plays in local climate. Forests, not so much as a carbon sink but also as a natural air conditioner under the canopy (not to mention transpiration)....yet it is CO2 that is the go to villain these days, mainly because the Malthusians can blame it in light of the naive public, and their desire to change the global economic order of things. Examine the premise, and then look at what warmers ignore or summarily dismiss (largely because its outside their pay grade) and you're likely to stumble onto clues that elude us in the disinformation age. ( Now that the securitization of intellectual property has begun, its likely we will soon enter a modified Fahrenheit 451 scenario ...where one may have to pay to speak as well as breathe.)
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
The solutions are like experiments. We have little idea of the result of the experiment we are now running by pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. We have no clue as to whether it is 100% save or even 10% safe. It is a big roll of the dice to take the planets ecosystem to a place it has never been during the existence of humans.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
I beg your pardon. The solution is obvious: Have anti-nuclear activists tarred and feathered.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Rick Moran wrote: Given the IPCC’s track record of models predicting temperature … . Perhaps the scientists could invent a machine that shuts down volcanoes

Mr. Moran demonstrates his ignorance of science and climate change. Emissions of CO2 cause by human activity is 29 Billion tons per year while emission of CO2 by volcanos is less (possibly much less) than 319 million tons per year, less than 1 percent of human emissions. However the particulates and other gases put into the atmosphere by volcanos actually have a cooling effect. Shutting down volcanos would raise temperatures rather than reduce them. As for his false claim that the IPCC models over estimate temperature rise, he appears to want to ignore facts. The IPCC models have consistently underestimated the melting rate of arctic ice, the melting rate of glacial ice, sea level rise, CO2 emissions, and other metrics associated with climate change.
Skeptics often ignore the effects of ocean circulation (oscillations) on the global temperature. The high global temperature in 1998 was the result of a very strong El Nino which transferred energy from the ocean to the atmosphere. For every degree of temperature change, the oceans can store more than a thousand times as much energy as the atmosphere, resulting in a very strong moderator of global surface temperature. Citing short term global surface temperatures as an indication that warming has stalled without consideration of ocean temperatures (at all levels) is nonsensical.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
All lies, without any evidence.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
And you are bothering to argue your point here why? A funny thing about "facts": they frequently just make the skeptic become more entrenched in their views.

You and your fancy "science". You will change zero minds here.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
It appears that by claiming that no one here will change their minds is that they are closed minded. My intent is not necessarily to change minds but to exchange information such that we can learn from each other.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
"As for his false claim that the IPCC models over estimate temperature rise, he appears to want to ignore facts. The IPCC models have consistently underestimated the melting rate of arctic ice, the melting rate of glacial ice, sea level rise, CO2 emissions, and other metrics associated with climate change."

Yes - but what about rising temps? I didn't mention melting ice, sea level rise, or anything but failed models predicting rising temps. This is undeniably so. And the fact that the models have been wildly inaccurate in underestimating some effects of climate change makes my point exactly - models have proven useless in predicting global warming effects.

And I'm the one ignoring facts?

35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
There have been many periods when the global temperature decreased, however, these declines have been short term in terms of climate trends which require 20 to 30 years of records to validate a trend. As I stated previously, citing short term global surface temperatures as an indication that warming has stalled without consideration of ocean temperatures (at all levels) is nonsensical because surface temperature is highly variable. Ocean circulation (e.g., ENSO, PD0, NAO) have large effects on weather (i.e., short term surface temperature measurements) by causing energy to slosh between the ocean and the atmosphere. 93% to 95% of additional energy resulting from increased GHGs is stored in the oceans and the amount of energy being stored is steadily been increasing (http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ ).

For a more detailed explanation read http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/10/global-warming-unpaused-fast-forward .

Climate change is being driven by net energy flux which is positive (i.e., the energy content of the planet is increasing).
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Hey. if you can have your own self serving science and models why can't we?

You talk about tons of CO2 emissions as if someone can actually draw an intelligent conclusion form your numbers. Well the atmosphere weighs 5.5 quadrillion tons - so there.

I have some other numbers also: CO2 makes up less than .0005 of our atmosphere and even your model-projected man-made increase is only .005 of that. This is a vanishingly small number on which to blame coming Armageddon.

So the arctic is supposedly melting - what about the overall rate of ice accumulation on the planet - what do your data sets or models have to say about that?

And the sea level rise - just how are you calculating that and what is your margin of error?

And also, skeptics do not ignore the effects of ocean circulations, or forestation or anything else. In most cases they count on these things to demonstrate that the planet possesses these powerful closed loop control methods that keep much of our environment in steady state - steady enough for life forms to adapt to changes easily if allowed to.

In my view (I am an engineer and have read a lot of studied and looked at some models and data sets without bias I believe) your side is the one most likely to be seen in the future as the nonsense peddlers of our era.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Water vapor is one of the strongest GHG’s but CO2 absorbs IR radiation in parts of the spectrum for which water is transparent.CO2 prevents that part of the spectrum from escaping directly into space and re-emits some of the absorbed energy back to the earth, raising the temperature. The elevated temperature causes the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere to increase trapping additional energy. Prior to the industrial revolution, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was stable (plants sequestered as much CO2 as was being emitted by humans and natural sources) and necessary to keep the earth from becoming an ice ball. Since the 1870s, human activity has increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to about 390 ppm. Of course it is silly for us to be discussing science that has been known for over 200 years as though a couple of none experts are going to discover something that the best minds in the world have missed.


With regard to ice volumes (no models necessary), measurements indicate that ice volumes are decreasing in the Antarctic, Greenland, mountain glaciers, and practically everywhere except possibly the Antarctic sea ice (a trivial volume).

Sea level rise is measured by costal tidal gauges and satellites. You did not know that? And you are arguing about climate change?

And also, skeptics do not ignore the effects of ocean circulations, or forestation or anything else. In most cases they count on these things to demonstrate that the planet possesses these powerful closed loop control methods that keep much of our environment in steady state - steady enough for life forms to adapt to changes easily if allowed to.

So your opinion is that the members of the national academies around the world are nonsense peddlers in spite of the fact that the rest of the scientific community considers them the most capable and knowledgeable scientists and mathematicians in the world? Your opinion seems a bit arrogant to me.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
"So your opinion is that the members of the national academies around the world are nonsense peddlers ?"

Yes - the ones pushing the need for dramatic action based on the fraudulent science that currently underpins the AGW movement.

"in spite of the fact that the rest of the scientific community considers them the most capable and knowledgeable scientists and mathematicians in the world?"

I'll let everyone else contemplate this last bit of arrogant nonsense that you wrote. Somehow you know that "the rest of the scientific community" actually knows the people supporting AGW and for some reason considers them to be "the most capable scientists and mathematicians in the world". Just typical of the ill-informed or intentional hyperbole that characterizes the AGW movement and its supporters.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
You may dismiss statements from expert sources, but if you are brave enough to look at the following page, I would like your comments on the content.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?a=17
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
It looks like part of a well orchestrated funding campaign. I would wager that most if not all of the undersigned organizations exist at the pleasure of politicians.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
You would lose the wager. Some are government agencies, but most are independent science organizations that publish science journals and are supported by membership dues and paid subscriptions to the journals they publish. I am surprised that you were not curious enough to follow any of the links to learn about the organizations such as American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society

How about these?
http://www.us-cap.org/
http://www.c2es.org/business/video-what-belc-companies-are-saying-about-climate
Any thoughts?
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
So you believe citing the statements of the members of the National Academies is arrogant nonsense? Do you have any idea as to the membership of the National Academies and the National Research Council?
Wikipedia:
As of 2013, the National Academy of Sciences includes about 2,200 members and 400 foreign associates.[6] The current members annually elect new members for life. Nearly 200 members have won a Nobel Prize.[6]

http://www.nationalacademies.org/memarea/
Election to the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, or Institute of Medicine is considered one of the highest professional honors among scientists, engineers, and health care professionals. Each year, new members are elected by current members based on outstanding achievement and commitment to service.

It seems arrogant for you to accuse the members of the National Academies of dishonesty without providing any evidence to support such scandalous indictments.

Why should I consider your personal opinion when it conflicts with that of the members of the national academies of at least eight nations, every scientific organization in the world (e.g., ACM, AMS, IEEE, AGU), the CEO’s of at least 50 major corporations (e.g., IBM, Dow, GE, Shell, Alcoa, Boston Scientific Corporation, Chrysler, DuPont, Ford, , Honeywell, Johnson & Johnson, PepsiCo, PG&E, Rio Tinto, Shell, Siemens, Weyerhaeuser;.; American Electric Power; Bank of America; BASF; Boeing; Cummins Inc.; Deere; Deutsche Telekom, Exelon; HP; Intel; Lockheed)?
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
For every "study" or "expert" that you cite, I can cite one or more who do not find any of it compelling. And it will be funny how all of yours will have a financial or personal stake in the adoption of global warming as a problem to be fixed by government taxation. All of mine will be neutral and won't really want anything out of it but to speak the truth (and don't regurgitate that crap about big oil objections - they are all positioned to feed at the trough as crony capitalism partners). I will consider your opinion when you give up your own car, your in-home heating system and when you stop eating food wherever its supply chain uses fossil fuels. In the meantime stop trying to ruin my standard of living. If there really is an imminent crisis, the burden of proof is on your side - and you are doing a pretty miserable job of it what with phony data, ludicrous modelling, refusal to allow opposing peer review and a lot of other things that are posted in the comments here.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
You seem to have a lot of opinions and claims but you supply no facts. If you can, post some facts that show what I have posted is incorrect. For example:

1. The number of climatologists that dispute AGW is tiny (less than 3%) and shrinking every year.

2. No national or international science organization disputes AGW but the vast majority support it.
http://www.caets.org/cms/7122/7735.aspx
http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13954.aspx
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus

MRG01 wrote: refusal to allow opposing peer review
So you believe there is a huge global conspiracy involving every nongovernment scientific organization like the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union, 97 percent of climatologists, 80 percent of all scientists and engineers, almost every national academy (government funded but independent of government direction), etc.? How would such a wide conspiracy involving so many people and organizations be kept a secret?
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Wikipedia is to intelligent conversation as Wonderbread is to a professional athlete's training diet.

35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
If you had followed any of the footnotes on the page, you could have read the statements by the various scientific organizations. For example, the following excerpt is from the statement by the American Meteorological Society which can be found by following the footnote on the page.
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html
Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
A single personal opinion is worthless. You would have an argument if you found an error on the page I referenced. If you cannot find an error, then regardless of the reputation of the site, the information is valid and you opinion is irrelevant.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Where's your proof that this is the mechanism of 'warming'...do you know what a 'claim' is? Elegant theories are kept on life support not proven with statistics....how did you arrive at that average temperature data anyway and did you consider that it is not a meaningful statistic....I submit it is irrelevant, and unless you can develop a data driven process model that knits together small units of modeled regional ecosystems and the gradients not average temperatures therein, also considering other known and unknown factors (ie what are those SAGE experiments anyway) land use (BY ALL SPECIES)underwater activity volcanic and otherwise, on a planet wide scale, then you really have no model at all. You'd also need a supercomputer that hasn't been built yet, or maybe just terraform another planet and observe what happens. We do impact the PLANET but this CO2 thing has gone a little too far (methinks its stems from hacks that were impressed by and fell in love with Venus at an early age)....show me Arrhenius' claims of global warming. Can you say Occams Razor?
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Lets start reducing the CO2 by removing ecofascist scum from the gene pool.

It will be a fascinating exercise in Darwinian evolution. A small loud-mouthed segment of the species goes insane; the rest of us have to remove it before it does damage to the rest of us.

I can't wait.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
If it weren't for water and plant life, the global warming alchemists would've been on to something.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All

One Trackback to “For Unproven Theory, Scientists Propose Unproven Solutions”