Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Global warming or coming ice age ?
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Jul 24 12:36:33 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Time Mag Flashback: 1974 Issue Warns of Man-Made 'Global Cooling'

Do you want to know the real reason there is global warming now? It's because people in 1974 panicked about news that humans were actually causing "global cooling." To remedy the situation, countries upped their pollution and cut down more trees. But now it's gotten too hot again.

Entertainment Weekly said that Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" had done the "inconceivable," it "made Al Gore cool." If Al Gore can save us from the next crisis, and make world temperatures be as "cool" as he is, maybe a future leader who is "hot" can save us from the next "global cooling" catastrophe.

From the Jun 24, 1974, Time Magazine, entitled: "Another Ice Age?"

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.

Sunspot Cycle. The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth's surface receives from the sun. Changes in the earth's tilt and distance from the sun could, for instance, significantly increase or decrease the amount of solar radiation falling on either hemisphere—thereby altering the earth's climate. Some observers have tried to connect the eleven-year sunspot cycle with climate patterns, but have so far been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation of how the cycle might be involved.

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program).

Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.

The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries—the U.S., Canada and Australia —global food stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."




 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Jul 24 12:43:53 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  And here's still more :

Here is the text of Newsweek’s 1975 story on the trend toward global cooling. It may look foolish today, but in fact world temperatures had been falling since about 1940. It was around 1979 that they reversed direction and resumed the general rise that had begun in the 1880s, bringing us today back to around 1940 levels.



There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

[end]




 
Mesh Posted: Mon Jul 24 15:36:04 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  global warming is a liberal conspiracy though up by ralph nader and pushed on the rest of us by al gore and michael moore


 
sweet p Posted: Mon Jul 24 16:38:21 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i was annoyed that they wouldn't show the discovery channel program "global warming: what you need to know" in canada. apparently only the americans got to see it. i rarely watch television but i was actually waiting by the teevee to see what they had to say about the issue.
this is off topic but i just wanted to share..and my brain can't handle all those words up there at the moment.

i also miss christophe.


 
Mesh Posted: Mon Jul 24 16:42:49 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  That sucks. Maybe the're just going to show it up there at some other time? I can't imagine they won't ever show it.



Or maybe the new Prime Minister doesn't want it to be shown.


 
addi Posted: Mon Jul 24 16:44:39 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I really liked the title of this thread but now it just makes me feel like throwing up


 
sweet p Posted: Mon Jul 24 16:53:52 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  might I suggest turning your head away from the computer if this happens again. I discovered most insurance policies won't cover a ruined motherboard due to someone puking on it.


 
sweet p Posted: Mon Jul 24 16:58:00 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Mr. Misses said:
>That sucks. Maybe the're just going to show it up there at some other time?

i dunno..the advertisements were shown here but then when the actual day of the "world" premiere came it wasn't aired. and then i checked the listings and it was nowhere to be found.


 
Mesh Posted: Mon Jul 24 17:13:52 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Sweet P said:
>might I suggest turning your head away from the computer if this happens again. I discovered most insurance policies won't cover a ruined motherboard due to someone puking on it.


déjà vu déjà vécu



 
addi Posted: Mon Jul 24 17:15:11 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Sweet P said:
>might I suggest turning your head away from the computer if this happens again. I discovered most insurance policies won't cover a ruined motherboard due to someone puking on it.

touche, P you really got me there.

Better yet, I'll think I'll just avoid reading the ignorance permeating this thread up to this point.



*People who are sure global warming is all just a hoax need to view Gore's film...not because he made it, but because they just may become a smidgen more enlightened on the topic.


 
Mesh Posted: Mon Jul 24 17:35:02 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>
>
>Better yet, I'll think I'll just avoid reading the supreme and undeniable truth permeating this thread up to this point.
>
>
>




not really though


 
sweet p Posted: Mon Jul 24 18:06:32 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  :)


 
mat_j Posted: Mon Jul 24 18:43:10 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  If there's no such thing as global warming how come i'm forever having to arrange alternative accomodation for people being flooded out every weekend and have summers (here at least) have been getting progressively hotter for the past decade or so!

They can just about support vinyards in the land once famously described as foggy and cold.

I can't even remember the last time i saw fog?!


 
Kira Posted: Mon Jul 24 18:45:16 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I've known the planet is fine for years. Why didn't anyone ask me?

The planet is FINE.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Jul 24 19:06:37 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I don't think anyone doubts global warming is happenning, but what's causing is the question and how long it will last.
Our planet is constantly in flux and will always be warming or cooling, any idiot can see that.
Gore's film is junk science at it's best.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/


 
FN Posted: Mon Jul 24 20:05:36 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Sweet P said:
>i also miss christophe.

That's very sweet of you

I'm around, skimming over things every few days.

Holidays here, which equals a lot of things to do


 
libra Posted: Mon Jul 24 20:06:08 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>I don't think anyone doubts global warming is happenning, but what's causing is the question and how long it will last.
>Our planet is constantly in flux and will always be warming or cooling, any idiot can see that.
>Gore's film is junk science at it's best.
>
>http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/


what about the part where he said that ACTUAL, PEER REVIEWED scientific journals agree with global warming...almost 100%, if not 100%?

what about the part when he said that it is only the mainstream media that doubts the fact that humans are a major cause of global warming?

I'm sorry, but as someone educated by scientists in the correct ways about releasing data, I'm going to believe the peer reviewed scientific journals.

and...
Wouldn't it be easier to make attempts to fight global warming even if it ISN'T caused by humans...cause in the long run it'll make the earth cleaner no matter what?
Do we have to be on the verge of death to be convinced of doing something healthier for ourselves and the planet?

I'm not going to read those articles by the way, they make me so furious, and it's too fucking hot right now for me to deal with them...when you have 106 degree temperature for four days in a row for the first time in your area, you tend to start thinking that there might be a problem.


 
Mesh Posted: Tue Jul 25 00:00:32 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I like when Libra gets all fired up.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 25 08:42:55 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>I'm not going to read those articles by the way, they make me so furious, and it's too fucking hot right now for me to deal with them...when you have 106 degree temperature for four days in a row for the first time in your area, you tend to start thinking that there might be a problem.
>
Of course you won't read them, lest you become enlightened.
It was just as hot in the 30's you know. . .


 
libra Posted: Tue Jul 25 10:39:25 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>libra said:
>>I'm not going to read those articles by the way, they make me so furious, and it's too fucking hot right now for me to deal with them...when you have 106 degree temperature for four days in a row for the first time in your area, you tend to start thinking that there might be a problem.
>>
>Of course you won't read them, lest you become enlightened.
>It was just as hot in the 30's you know. . .

I've read those kinds of things before hif. I know the arguments, and I think they're bullshit.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 25 11:26:43 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>libra said:
>>>I'm not going to read those articles by the way, they make me so furious, and it's too fucking hot right now for me to deal with them...when you have 106 degree temperature for four days in a row for the first time in your area, you tend to start thinking that there might be a problem.
>>>
>>Of course you won't read them, lest you become enlightened.
>>It was just as hot in the 30's you know. . .
>
>I've read those kinds of things before hif. I know the arguments, and I think they're bullshit.
>
These articles are based on fact and you are not going to read them merely because they differ from your unwavering opinion.
Try this one http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic.htm

Nice pic by the way . . .


 
libra Posted: Tue Jul 25 17:24:55 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>libra said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>>libra said:
>>>>I'm not going to read those articles by the way, they make me so furious, and it's too fucking hot right now for me to deal with them...when you have 106 degree temperature for four days in a row for the first time in your area, you tend to start thinking that there might be a problem.
>>>>
>>>Of course you won't read them, lest you become enlightened.
>>>It was just as hot in the 30's you know. . .
>>
>>I've read those kinds of things before hif. I know the arguments, and I think they're bullshit.
>>
>These articles are based on fact and you are not going to read them merely because they differ from your unwavering opinion.
>Try this one http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic.htm
>
>Nice pic by the way . . .


find me an article in a peer-reviewed, legitimate scientific journal that proves your point and I will read it. I will not, however, read what is basically the blog of a man who is a Fox News "expert" and a paid advocate for Exxonmobil and Phillip Morris.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 25 19:06:31 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>libra said:
>>>ifihadahif said:
>>>>libra said:
>>>>>I'm not going to read those articles by the way, they make me so furious, and it's too fucking hot right now for me to deal with them...when you have 106 degree temperature for four days in a row for the first time in your area, you tend to start thinking that there might be a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>Of course you won't read them, lest you become enlightened.
>>>>It was just as hot in the 30's you know. . .
>>>
>>>I've read those kinds of things before hif. I know the arguments, and I think they're bullshit.
>>>
>>These articles are based on fact and you are not going to read them merely because they differ from your unwavering opinion.
>>Try this one http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic.htm
>>
>>Nice pic by the way . . .
>
>
>find me an article in a peer-reviewed, legitimate scientific journal that proves your point and I will read it. I will not, however, read what is basically the blog of a man who is a Fox News "expert" and a paid advocate for Exxonmobil and Phillip Morris.
>
Where do you think he gets his data ?
He doesn't make it up you know.
Find me something he says that is not factual.


 
libra Posted: Tue Jul 25 19:56:19 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>libra said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>>libra said:
>>>>ifihadahif said:
>>>>>libra said:
>>>>>>I'm not going to read those articles by the way, they make me so furious, and it's too fucking hot right now for me to deal with them...when you have 106 degree temperature for four days in a row for the first time in your area, you tend to start thinking that there might be a problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Of course you won't read them, lest you become enlightened.
>>>>>It was just as hot in the 30's you know. . .
>>>>
>>>>I've read those kinds of things before hif. I know the arguments, and I think they're bullshit.
>>>>
>>>These articles are based on fact and you are not going to read them merely because they differ from your unwavering opinion.
>>>Try this one http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic.htm
>>>
>>>Nice pic by the way . . .
>>
>>
>>find me an article in a peer-reviewed, legitimate scientific journal that proves your point and I will read it. I will not, however, read what is basically the blog of a man who is a Fox News "expert" and a paid advocate for Exxonmobil and Phillip Morris.
>>
>Where do you think he gets his data ?
>He doesn't make it up you know.
>Find me something he says that is not factual.

I don't care whether or not he's using actual facts. Facts (especially graphs like that) can be distorted to fit what one wants to see.

I want to see something written by a legitimate scientist whose conclusions have been found to be correct by the scientific community around him/her.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 25 20:37:38 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  You mean data from NOAA or the Goddard Institute for Space studies or the Global Historical Climatology Network isn't any good anymore ?
How about NASA ?

You can love Al Gore all you want, but the fact is he has been challenged to debate his claims many times and he has yet to do so.
You know as well as I that there are just as many respected scientists that disagree as there are that agree with him.


 
libra Posted: Tue Jul 25 22:20:11 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>You mean data from NOAA or the Goddard Institute for Space studies or the Global Historical Climatology Network isn't any good anymore ?
>How about NASA ?
>
>You can love Al Gore all you want, but the fact is he has been challenged to debate his claims many times and he has yet to do so.

I'm not defending Al Gore, he's not a scientist, I wouldn't expect him to have to 'debate'

>You know as well as I that there are just as many respected scientists that disagree as there are that agree with him.

and I don't know that at all...actually, I completely disagree with that.


 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Sun Jul 30 13:02:33 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The text says:

(from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.)

This makes me want to believe ice is growing everywhere except in Europe ???
NOT

All glaciers in European mountainchains are schrinking NOT growing, and I speak from my own experience. I'm a climber, and every year more and more of the glaciers, the snow peaks and ice is dissapearing...

Beautifull snowpeaks that my parents used to climb when they where young are now bare rocks with nothing of snow and ice on them...

How can you tell me the world is cooling?

Examples of schrinking glaciers can be found all over the world by the way:

Some examples:

- Most himalayan glaciers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4346211.stm)
- The alps (europe)
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4874224.stm)

-http://www.coasttocoastam.com/timages/page/glacier_bay012905.jpg

-->I believe this picture is one of the most shocking

And for the record, glaciers do not tend to melt when it is cooling...
And you can check that:p

Melting glaciers will eventually make the world cooler, just like in the last ice age. The cold water will undo the gulfstream and so on and on and on, Everybody know's that story...

It's the natural way the world will probably deal with it, but it won't be for us to see, and it will get a lot hotter first...
So get sunscreen and sunglasses this will become the hottest place to be ;)



 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Sun Jul 30 13:04:33 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Oh, I also want to ad that the title of the thread isn't a choise, it's bound to happen both...

Global warming will lead to coming ice age, just like I explained in the above


 
FN Posted: Sun Jul 30 16:15:32 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hm.

I wonder wether I know you


 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Sun Jul 30 17:47:34 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Hm.
>
>I wonder wether I know you

kedunk ?


 
FN Posted: Sun Jul 30 20:54:11 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ~Just Imagine~ said:
>Christophe said:
>>Hm.
>>
>>I wonder wether I know you
>
>kedunk ?

Kende veel mense die christophe noeme?


 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Mon Jul 31 04:48:57 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  nee, alleh, Khad vroeger naart schijnt wel een christophe als buur dachtik , verder niemand , of toch niet dat ik mij kan herinneren ofzo...
Tlijkt mij ma raar ;)


 
FN Posted: Mon Jul 31 05:53:46 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hmmmmm

Ik meen mij te herinneren da ge in de buurt van lede woont, nee?

verkeerde me iemand van lede ofzo, mss kennek em, zou nog grappig zijn :o)


 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Mon Jul 31 06:17:14 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Kverkeer me niemand
Ma kheb mss wel vrienden ofzo da ge kunt kennen van in lee, aangezien ik ier idd woon
En da zou al even grappig zijn ;)


 
FN Posted: Mon Jul 31 07:41:07 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hm

Ma kben u naam vergeten, noemt anders azo es enkel courante namen waarvan dagge pijst die zen redelijk bekend


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 2 16:15:43 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  From Newsbusters.com today:

Consensus is not scientific fact. The best minds in science have throughout history given us more than one case of hysteria driven farce. In 1487, the best minds in science wrote the Malleus Maleficarum. That little snippet of wisdom gave us scientific proof of the existence of witches. And Joe, before you go off on one of your anti-Christian rants know this, the MM was condemned by the church in Germany, where it was first written, as both illegal and unethical. It was placed on the forbidden books list by the Pope circa 1488 and was even condemned by the Inquisition in 1490. So you see the MM was not a religious text, rather a work of scientific consensus.

Despite being denounced as a fraud, the printers, the media of the day, continued to turn out copies of the book, even translating it into numerous other languages to gain a wider distribution. I’m sure the printers made a pretty penny foisting this fraudulent, scientific consensus on the public. In the meantime, politicians latched onto the MM band wagon and realized that this was the perfect means to rid themselves of entire unwanted portions of their societies. Jews, Catholics, Protestants, women, men; didn’t matter. Just dig deep enough into the MM and there would be scientific proof that these unwanted portions of society, read opponents, were witches and must die. How many hundreds of thousands died before the witch hysterias finally ended we will never know. End results? The printers (media) got rich, the politicians gained what they most desired, power. These historical facts just too old and ancient for you Joe? OK, let’s look at something a little more recent.

In 1910 Halley ’s Comet made its every 76 year appearance. The new technology of spectrographic photography allowed the best minds in science to show that the vapors that made up the tail of the comet contained poisonous cyanogens. The popular media picked up this fact and, despite the pleas of astronomers, wove sensational tales of mass cyanide poisoning engulfing the planet. People all over the world feared death. Clever entrepreneurs even sold comet pills, comet filters and gas masks that promised protection against the dreaded inevitable. A whole industry was born. Sound familiar? Some poor souls, overcome by the media driven, junk science, hysteria, even committed suicide. End results? The snake oil salesmen and the media got rich. Need more?

In 1920, the New York Times in an editorial ridiculed Dr. Robert Goddard and his claim that a rocket could work in space. Their editorial read, “That Professor Goddard, with his "chair" in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react – to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.”

Gee Joe, I guess in 1920, the consensus of the scientific community which “ladled out daily in high schools” their bogus junk science, was wrong. Good thing Neil Armstrong didn’t listen to those particular science teachers, huh.

Today Joe, the purveyors of junk science are ladling out daily in our high schools and elsewhere, their momentous gospel of Global Warming. They are daily demanding in ever louder voices that we all bend the knee and change our world to fit their silly hypotheses. Those who disagree with their new scientific gospel, are disparaged, maligned, ridiculed and persecuted with nearly the same savagery as those accused of witchcraft in earlier times. I would dare say that if Al Gore could burn a few right wingers at the stake to make a point he would. A whole industrial complex of Global Warming charlatans has been created. The media, print, electronic, and the movies, is making a fortune hyping this junk. The most damning indicator of all, politicians are the biggest supporters of this nonsense. I don’t know about you, but I believe in learning from history rather than repeating it. All of these indicators has me smelling a big fat rat.

Don’t be taken in by the hysteria Joe. Bottom line, when multi-million dollar snake oil industries are created to prey on the public’s fears for survival, and when politicians start spouting science, look for a humbug!




 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Aug 2 19:37:07 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/pub/data/special/maxtemps.pdf

Anyone want to take a look at this list and explain why we are not experiencing these temps now if global warming is happening the way Al Bore says it is ?

Looking at the list, it seems that maybe we should have been screaming global warming in the 30's eh ?


 
libra Posted: Sat Aug 5 13:06:50 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/pub/data/special/maxtemps.pdf
>
>Anyone want to take a look at this list and explain why we are not experiencing these temps now if global warming is happening the way Al Bore says it is ?
>
>Looking at the list, it seems that maybe we should have been screaming global warming in the 30's eh ?

hif, it may not be necessary to reach the record highs to experience global warming. A shift in the year-round temps by only a few degrees changes things.
The tiny plankton that live at the top of the ocean can't live at the levels they do because the ocean warms...then the bigger plankton that eat them are affected, and the fish, whales, birds, etc. all are affected. It's a process of total small changes making larger and larger ripples throughout the world. You don't have to hit 122 degrees one day to have global warming, but if you have a summer of 106 degree weather quite often, everything is bumped around.
That's one thing we know for sure in nature. Every little thing ends up playing out in some way. What you put in your body changes the way your body performs. What we put into the air changes the way the air performs. What we pour into our oceans changes the way the oceans perform. When you have, on a global level, the levels of pollution that we have, one must expect reactions from the earth.

And maybe we just haven't reached the highs yet, but we might, and is that something to wait for to do anything?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Aug 5 15:51:55 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/pub/data/special/maxtemps.pdf
>>
>>Anyone want to take a look at this list and explain why we are not experiencing these temps now if global warming is happening the way Al Bore says it is ?
>>
>>Looking at the list, it seems that maybe we should have been screaming global warming in the 30's eh ?
>
>hif, it may not be necessary to reach the record highs to experience global warming. A shift in the year-round temps by only a few degrees changes things.
>The tiny plankton that live at the top of the ocean can't live at the levels they do because the ocean warms...then the bigger plankton that eat them are affected, and the fish, whales, birds, etc. all are affected. It's a process of total small changes making larger and larger ripples throughout the world. You don't have to hit 122 degrees one day to have global warming, but if you have a summer of 106 degree weather quite often, everything is bumped around.
>That's one thing we know for sure in nature. Every little thing ends up playing out in some way. What you put in your body changes the way your body performs. What we put into the air changes the way the air performs. What we pour into our oceans changes the way the oceans perform. When you have, on a global level, the levels of pollution that we have, one must expect reactions from the earth.
>
>And maybe we just haven't reached the highs yet, but we might, and is that something to wait for to do anything?
>
The earth is constantly changing, nothing we do is going to change that.
Our climate has been in flux since the beginning of time and the 30year samples Al Gore is using to establish global warming is a joke.
We aren't causing it now, anymore than we caused it back in the 30's.
Where are the massive hurricanes we were supposed to get this year ? The season is half over and we haven't seen a helluva lot now have we ?


 
libra Posted: Sat Aug 5 16:30:29 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>libra said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>>http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/pub/data/special/maxtemps.pdf
>>>
>>>Anyone want to take a look at this list and explain why we are not experiencing these temps now if global warming is happening the way Al Bore says it is ?
>>>
>>>Looking at the list, it seems that maybe we should have been screaming global warming in the 30's eh ?
>>
>>hif, it may not be necessary to reach the record highs to experience global warming. A shift in the year-round temps by only a few degrees changes things.
>>The tiny plankton that live at the top of the ocean can't live at the levels they do because the ocean warms...then the bigger plankton that eat them are affected, and the fish, whales, birds, etc. all are affected. It's a process of total small changes making larger and larger ripples throughout the world. You don't have to hit 122 degrees one day to have global warming, but if you have a summer of 106 degree weather quite often, everything is bumped around.
>>That's one thing we know for sure in nature. Every little thing ends up playing out in some way. What you put in your body changes the way your body performs. What we put into the air changes the way the air performs. What we pour into our oceans changes the way the oceans perform. When you have, on a global level, the levels of pollution that we have, one must expect reactions from the earth.
>>
>>And maybe we just haven't reached the highs yet, but we might, and is that something to wait for to do anything?
>>
>The earth is constantly changing, nothing we do is going to change that.

Yes. We can make it change faster and more drastically. It's obviously not 'natural' for the exhaust of millions of cars to be pumped into the air daily is it?

>Our climate has been in flux since the beginning of time and the 30year samples Al Gore is using to establish global warming is a joke.

Al Gore used samples of millions of years.

>We aren't causing it now, anymore than we caused it back in the 30's.

>Where are the massive hurricanes we were supposed to get this year ? The season is half over and we haven't seen a helluva lot now have we ?

Things didn't come together in the right way for hurricanes, but there have been drastic heat waves. More children than ever have asthma, which is believed to be caused by the poor air quality in many areas. Polar bears are actually drowning because they will swim without finding ice for long periods of time, and they are moving down into lower areas than they've ever been to look for land and food.

It's not a matter of whether or not there is global warming, but a matter of how our lifestyles have affected the planet and how big the effects will be...for us, for the climate, for the natural balance of food chains, etc.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Aug 5 20:25:42 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>>
>Things didn't come together in the right way for hurricanes, but there have been drastic heat waves. More children than ever have asthma, which is believed to be caused by the poor air quality in many areas. Polar bears are actually drowning because they will swim without finding ice for long periods of time, and they are moving down into lower areas than they've ever been to look for land and food.
>
>It's not a matter of whether or not there is global warming, but a matter of how our lifestyles have affected the planet and how big the effects will be...for us, for the climate, for the natural balance of food chains, etc.
>
We haven't yet experienced a heat wave as severe as the one in the 1930's.
Do you suppose we caused that one too ?

"things didn't come together in the right way for hurricanes" - What the hell does that mean ?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Aug 5 20:31:03 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Fact: The recent heat wave hitting Mid-Atlantic States is nowhere close to breaking record temperatures set in 1930 – nearly 60 years before fears of human cased catastrophic global warming began. "That summer has never been approached, and it's not going to be approached this year," said the state of Virginia’s climatologist Patrick Michaels. See: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200608/NAT20060804c.html

Fact: According to official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK, the global average temperature did not increase between 1998-2005. “…this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” noted paleoclimate researcher and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia in an April 2006 article titled, “There is a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998.” See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

Fact: Polar Bears are not going extinct because of the supposedly melting ice, according to a biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the arctic government of Nunavut. “Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present,” Taylor wrote on May 1, 2006. See here: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1146433819696&call_pageid=970599119419

Fact: A New York Times recent article debunked Herbert’s claims, noting that there is ‘dubious evidence’ that Kilimanjaro is melting due to global warming. “The ice on Kilimanjaro has been in retreat since at least the 1880's, with the greatest decline occurring at the beginning of that period, when greenhouse gas concentrations were much lower,” says the New York Times article of July4, 2006 by Philip M. Boffey. “The National Academies panel judged that Kilimanjaro's glaciers "may be shrinking primarily as a continuing response to precipitation changes earlier in the century," Boffey noted.

Fact: Gore has been criticized by many scientists for his incorrect and misleading presentation of science in his movie. “A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” – wrote Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal. For more scientific critique of Gore see here: http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909

In April, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister questioning the basis for climate alarmism. The letter noted, "’Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." See web link:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605




 
Ahriman Posted: Mon Aug 7 16:11:53 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  On a flight from D.C. to Munich, I sat next to a fellow who was the senior scientist at an independent marine biology organization. After some basic flight small talk, we got on the subject of global warming. All I can really say is that no matter what you have seen on tv, in books, or been told by others. Global warming is really happening. I could spend 4 hours explaining it to you like he did but I won't. I love the sciences, and would never put forward any information that is false or misleading. Just understand it is real.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Aug 7 16:35:44 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ahriman said:
>On a flight from D.C. to Munich, I sat next to a fellow who was the senior scientist at an independent marine biology organization. After some basic flight small talk, we got on the subject of global warming. All I can really say is that no matter what you have seen on tv, in books, or been told by others. Global warming is really happening. I could spend 4 hours explaining it to you like he did but I won't. I love the sciences, and would never put forward any information that is false or misleading. Just understand it is real.
>
See number 2 fact in my above post.


 
libra Posted: Mon Aug 7 20:59:25 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
.
>>
>See number 2 fact in my above post.

hif, it's not all about temperature.

what you're doing is taking something that is huge and somewhat complex and acting as though one or two little things disprove it.

A complex system such as the earth requires an ability to look at it with an understanding of all the little links and connections.

I'm not going to continue with this thread, because I'm sick of debating about scientific fact. Just like I wouldn't ever try to debate evolution with someone.

the only way in which i can concieve of someone objecting to global warming is if they are religious and they feel that god has made the earth in a way that we can do anything to it without it responding. If you do not have that belief, then one would have to understand that what we do to the earth will change it.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Aug 7 21:09:47 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>ifihadahif said:
>.
>>>
>>See number 2 fact in my above post.
>
>hif, it's not all about temperature.
>
>what you're doing is taking something that is huge and somewhat complex and acting as though one or two little things disprove it.
>
>A complex system such as the earth requires an ability to look at it with an understanding of all the little links and connections.
>
>I'm not going to continue with this thread, because I'm sick of debating about scientific fact. Just like I wouldn't ever try to debate evolution with someone.
>
>the only way in which i can concieve of someone objecting to global warming is if they are religious and they feel that god has made the earth in a way that we can do anything to it without it responding. If you do not have that belief, then one would have to understand that what we do to the earth will change it.
>
Sorry, i'm not religious and still not buying it.
Global warming is not all about temperature ?
Would you care to define the word warming ?
Would you care to explain how the global climate stayed the same during the height of the SUV craze ?




 
libra Posted: Tue Aug 8 12:03:22 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/Climate.html



 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Aug 10 10:08:57 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  "Studies Prove": Part II
By Thomas Sowell
Thursday, August 10, 2006

My late mentor, Nobel Prize-winning economist George Stigler, used to say that it could be very instructive to spend a few hours in a library checking up on studies that had been cited. When I began doing that, I found it not only instructive but disillusioning.

A footnote in a textbook on labor economics cited six studies to back up a conclusion it reached. But, after I went to the library and looked at those six studies, it turned out that they each cited some other study -- the same other study in all six cases.

Now that the six studies had shrunk to one, I got that one study -- and found that it was a study of a very different situation from the one discussed in the labor economics textbook.

Some years back, there was a great flurry in the liberal media because a study showed that (1) black pregnant women received prenatal care less often than white pregnant women and that (2) infant mortality rates were higher among blacks.

There were indignant editorials in the New York Times and the Washington Post blaming the government for not providing greater access to prenatal care in order to stop preventable deaths of infants.

After getting a copy of the original study, I discovered that in the same study -- on the very same page -- statistics showed that (1) Mexican American women received even less prenatal care than black women and that (2) infant mortality rates among Mexican Americans were no higher than among whites.

A few pages further on, statistics showed that American women of Chinese, Japanese and Filipino ancestry also received less prenatal care than white women -- and had lower infant mortality rates than whites.

Apparently prenatal care was not the answer, though it was the kind of answer that suited the mindset of the liberal media and provided an occasion for them to wax indignant.

More recently, the National Academy of Sciences came out with a study that supposedly proved beyond a doubt that human activities were responsible for "global warming." A chorus of voices in the media, in politics and in academia proclaimed that this was no longer an issue but a scientific fact, proven with hard data.

The NAS report not had only statistics, it had an impressive list of scientists, which supposedly put the icing on the cake.

The only problem was that the scientists had not written the report and in fact had not even seen it before it was published, even though they had some affiliation with the National Academy of Sciences.

At least one of those scientists, meteorologist Richard S. Lindzen of M.I.T., publicly opposed the conclusion and has continued to do so. But that fact was largely lost in the midst of the media hoopla.

Besides, what is a mere meteorologist at M.I.T. compared to Al Gore and his movie?

Nobody can afford the time to check out every claim of what "studies prove." Even with the help of outstanding research assistants, I can only check out some.

However, the big television and print media have ample financial resources to check out claims before they present them to the public as "news." But when "60 Minutes" didn't bother before basing a story about President Bush's national guard service on a forged document, do not look for a lot of zeal for facts when that could kill a juicy story or the political spin accompanying it.

Let's face it. There is not much pay-off to checking original sources.

Once a minister was explaining to me the structure of his funeral orations. He said, "At this point, you are expected to say something good about the deceased. Now, Tom, if I were preaching your funeral, what would I say good about you at that point?"

He thought and thought -- for an embarrassingly long time. Finally, he said gravely: "In his research, he always used original sources."

I'll take that.




 
Nikki Posted: Tue Aug 15 10:37:25 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i miss u 2 Christophe


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]