"One point apparently causing confusion among our readers is the relative abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere today as compared with Earth's historical levels. Most people seem surprised when we say current levels are relatively low, at least from a long-term perspective - understandable considering the constant media/activist bleat about current levels being allegedly "catastrophically high." Even more express surprise that Earth is currently suffering one of its chilliest episodes in about six hundred million (600,000,000) years.Given that the late Ordovician suffered an ice age (with associated mass extinction) while atmospheric CO2 levels were more than 4,000ppm higher than those of today (yes, that's a full order of magnitude higher), levels at which current 'guesstimations' of climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 suggest every last skerrick of ice should have been melted off the planet, we admit significant scepticism over simplistic claims of small increment in atmospheric CO2 equating to toasted planet. Granted, continental configuration now is nothing like it was then, Sol's irradiance differs, as do orbits, obliquity, etc., etc. but there is no obvious correlation between atmospheric CO2 and planetary temperature over the last 600 million years, so why would such relatively tiny amounts suddenly become a critical factor now?" link
11 comments:
So i've been reading this book that the donkey reco'd. calle The True Believer by Eric Hoffer. i just read some of his thoughts this morning on the "fanatic". Al Gore is clearly a fanatic in the way that hoffer describes. No amount of fact or reason can change his mind. Only another fanatical argument can make him change course. It's pretty amazing really. I'm reading this book and the parallels to what's going on today with the Obama "movement" and the global warming retards is spot on.
Rhino, if you want to see a "true believer" look in the mirror. "No amount of fact or reason can change his mind." Or science.
As for this Junk Science website:
"JunkScience.com is a website maintained by Steven J. Milloy, an adjunct scholar the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute - right wing think tanks with long histories of denying environmental problems at the behest of the corporations which fund them. Milloy is also a columnist for FoxNews.com."
Round up the usual suspects.
"Prior to launching the JunkScience.com, Milloy worked for Jim Tozzi's Multinational Business Services, the Philip Morris tobacco company's primary lobbyist in Washington with respect to the issue of secondhand cigarette smoke. He subsequently went to work for The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a Philip Morris front group created by the PR firm of APCO Worldwide."
Why do these people always seem to have a link to both energy interests AND tobacco companies? What's the connection? Could they be paid hacks?
"Although Milloy frequently represent himself as an expert on scientific matters, he is not a scientist himself. ... He has never published original research in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Moreover, he has made scientific claims himself that have no basis in actual research."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkScience.com
And as to the science in your link, see:
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/earlyice.htm
"Critics who dismiss the importance of greenhouse gases as a cause of climate change lost one piece of ammunition this week. In a new study, scientists found further evidence of the role that greenhouse gases have played in Earth’s climate.
And in case you don't read the above link, since you don't like to look at evidence that doesn't support your position, here's the conclusion, which was also published in a peer-reviewed journal "Geology".
"The answer: This particular ice age didn’t begin when CO2 was at its peak -- it began 10 million years earlier, when CO2 levels were at a low.
“Our results are consistent with the notion that CO2 concentrations drive climate.”
That's a joke right? You're just trying to be funny now.
Do you read and actually think about what you link or just copy and paste the first result of your google search.
The links I gave discredit both the motivations and the alleged science behind your link, which is hardly breaking news, 2005.
I don't think you know what you're talking about. I see that Saltzman says his findings prove his point, that's not exactly a shocker I want to know why you think it does. I will give you an opportunity to defend your position before I destroy both you and Saltzman. Why does Saltzman's guesstimate prove me wrong and you right? Gets to googling.
honestly gary i don't read your links anymore.
However, in my own defense it's only because i think you're stupid.
As to the mirror comment, i'm not a fanatic. I actually have an open mind and used to believe that man created global warming and other things like holes in the ozone etc. I believed the spotted owl could only live in old growth forests. I believed in a progressive tax system, and i believed in evolution.
Now i don't.
A fanatic doesn't change his mind because a more logical argument comes along or because he or she learns the facts.
Rhino also believed he was white, until I explained to him that he was Mexican.
Well, my link challenged your link on the facts based on a peer-reviewed study. But you know better without reading it.
As for the ozone hole, if ever there was a case of a scientific hypothesis confirmed that was it. The scientists predicted the hole, the hole was found, actually larger than predicted, the CFCs were banned (credit to President Reagan there) and the hole began to shrink, thus winning the scientists involved the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. But you know better.
As for evolution, jesus please don't say there's no consensus there. Name ONE scientist who doesn't believe in evolution, except on religious grounds. And there is no alternative scientific theory to evolution. But you know better.
"Well, my link challenged your link on the facts based on a peer-reviewed study."
How so? Please explain.
Post a Comment