?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

***
THANK GOD THERE ARE STILL PEOPLE WITH
INTELLECTUAL HONESTY

Have you noticed? Thanks to the internet, more and more stories are being made available challenging the theory of man-made global warming and even the main-line media are finding it difficult to suppress the evidence and opinions of climatologists that have the intellectual honesty to expose the flaws in the so-called “consensus” of scientists. I'm sure that makes some of you angry. ;-)

Algore was booed so badly at Concordia University in Montréal, Quebec, apparently for his own massive consumption of energy, over twenty times the average American in only ONE of his four homes, the question-and-answer period was canceled, unfortunately, so those bright young Canadians were denied their chance to ask intelligent questions that might embarrass him. Maybe they were just ornery from the record-setting cold we’ve been experiencing this Spring. Ever notice how bitter-cold weather seems to follow Al everywhere?

There are two types of “bad scientists”, in my opinion. The first are the ones that fall in love with the technology and instrumentation OTHERS have created but haven’t the wisdom or the critical thinking to thoughtfully consider what it means when they stick their “rulers” up to the sky, declaring how clever they are in telling you the distances between star A and star B.

They second is more insidious because these scientists, amateur or professional, WANT to see a certain conclusion because they have a philosophy and an agenda that usually centers around themselves and how they view society and the world.

If you ask either of these people tough questions they will throw scientific double talk at you, tell you are too dumb to understand, attack you personally, demonize your sources, change the subject, and if none of that works simply walk away and continue following the tenets of their “religion”, looking for followers who think less critically, and groveling for more grant money. Indeed, the disciples of man-made “global warming” have created a sacred “cash cow” for those who would believe.

In recent weeks, more and more “skeptics” (as the news media derisively calls them) are joining the bandwagon. Syun-Ichi, former director of both the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Geophysical Institute and International Arctic Research Center, recently gave a presentation showing how warming and cooling trends have always been cyclical. He showed ice core data from the Russian Arctic that show warming starting from the early 1700s, temperature records from England showing the same trend back to 1660, and ice breakup dates at Tallinn, Estonia, that show a general warming since the year 1500.

He blames young scientists who have fallen in love with satellite data, which mainly go back around 40 years, while ignoring historical data that indicate trends that have been tracked for centuries. Check here for his interesting insights:

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF18/1847.html

Another “skeptic” is world-famous Hurricane expert Dr. William Gray who warned Louisiana mayor Ray Nagin that, “This is the big one” two days (as I recall) before Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast. In his closing presentation at a hurricane conference in New Orleans, Dr. Gray declared that, “I think he's (Algore) doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about.” He further stated his opinion that a recent up-tick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns and that ocean temperatures may actually drop in the next five to 10 years. Thank goodness for older scientists who have perspective in addition to recent data.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070407/D8OBK1DG0.html

In the April 16 Newsweek, several of the points I have mentioned in the past few weeks were brought up, particularly the glossing over or excluding of evidence that doesn’t fit the man-made “global warming” researchers model (see the link to my posts which include graphs and info on the "Little Ice Age" and the "Medieval Warming" period - link below).

“Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These factors, they claim, don't explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation. Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited. The models have also severely underestimated short-term variability El Niño and the Intra-seasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries.”


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

For anyone interested in some of the things I’ve written (and been ridiculed and insulted) about, go here:

http://metaphorsbwithu.livejournal.com/tag/global+warming

I have quite a bit of humor mixed in with articles, questions, graphs, observations, criticisms, and analysis.

I wonder though. If somehow people DO find out that this whole man-made global warming thing is a big scam, what are the "goose-steppers" going to do then? My guess is that the subject, like so many other scares foisted upon the masses, will fade away. Then they, their gullible faithful followers, and of course their media friends will latch upon some other hysteria to feed to a new generation of innocents who probably won’t know a snake oil salesman if it bit them. The bad thing is that these people know what they're doing, and that's scary.

***

I'm through with romance.
I'm through with love.
I'm through with countin'
The stars above
And here's the reason
That I'm so free:
My lovin' baby
Is through with me.


***

Comments

( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
amaliadubois
Apr. 9th, 2007 05:41 pm (UTC)
i wish i had time to debate you or read some of the articles you link...but i don't.
i do disagree.
the oceans are colder because of global warming btw. glacier melt.
metaphorsbwithu
Apr. 9th, 2007 06:39 pm (UTC)
Thanks for showing a desire to discuss this issue Kelly, even though you don't have the time. My purpose is not to debate, however, but to learn.

If I may, let me mention a few things. Glacial melting has occurred throughout history for a variety of reasons. Ocean temperatures, overall, have actually risen very slightly over the last hundred years.

Also, El Nino (warmer waters) and La Nina (cooler waters) in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans come and go and scientists don't really know why. Sometimes they predict more storm activity; sometimes they do not. Last year experts predicted an average of 17 named storms, a worse hurricane season than 2005. There were only ten including 5 modest hurricanes, all of which stayed away from the U.S. coast. (Thank God!)

As far as the theory of man-made global warming, I'm really concerned that "fudging" statistics (as do climatologists who leave out dramatic fluctuations in temperature as from the Medieval period (when it was much warmer than it "should" have been), and the "Little Ice Age" (when it was much colder) has become a "snow job". Using "dramatic" images, such as of polar bears on ice floes, implying they are somehow stranded, and not mentioning that this is what they do, that they can swim for hours while "hunting", makes one wonder what they're up to.

http://library.thinkquest.org/3500/polarbear.htm

We and our children deserve to be better educated in such matters, IMHO.

It's always nice to hear from you. :-)



amaliadubois
Apr. 9th, 2007 08:06 pm (UTC)
i don't see all that stuff since i'm not in the news worthy know... but i don't see why you think just because the earth warms and cools in cycles on it's own that means there can't be man-made global warming.
metaphorsbwithu
Apr. 9th, 2007 09:31 pm (UTC)
It's a lot easier for me to keep up with stuff like this because I only have myself to worry about. I do like to share what I learn with people who have a desire to know things.

Actually I’ve never said that it’s not possible for mankind to have some impact, but that’s it’s not anywhere near what the doomsayers are predicting. I've found that a lot of their “evidence” is suspect and involves a lot of misrepresentation and “junk science”.

I began believing there was some link between the so-called “greenhouse effect” and weather. I’ve always been very energy conscious and have practiced recycling long before it was fashionable. Over half of the materials I used to rebuild and repair my roof was from materials I painstakingly salvaged as I tore down my damaged roof. However, after reading some of the man-made global evidence as presented, I began to see gaping holes in the research, thanks in large part to a rational objective mind and the study of research methods and inferential statistics in college.

I have long seen a pattern in the mainstream media in which people are given a slanted version of the news, never so as much as today. I was a newspaper editor in college, have worked a little in the field and it actually sickens me. Knowledge is a sacred thing, and I cannot tolerate its manipulation and corruption at the hands of people with an agenda.

Rather than bore you by directing you to some of the information I’ve put up already, I’d advise you to keep an open but critical mind. If you are interested, read up on the subject. I find the subject fascinating and am learning quite a bit. This whole CO2 emissions scare, btw, was brought about because climatologists decided that it MUST be a cause because they couldn’t figure out anything else that could be. I simply ask, if CO2, why not oxygen, or water vapor, or nitrogen, or methane? The fact that researchers “dismiss” the warming periods in the middle ages and the “Little Ice Age” of the 1700-1800’s (because it doesn’t fit their CO2 emissions theory) should be telling. That is intellectual dishonesty.

The whole carbon cycle phenomenon in nature is a marvelous thing to behold, and CO2 is essential to human life. Forest fires and deforestation are two things that we should work to control because, as I’m sure you know, plants take in CO2 to produce sugars and give off life giving Oxygen as a “waste” product. I do think you’ll be hearing more and more of the other side of this debate because the genie is out of the bottle.

You might like to see some of those Sun photographs I put up too. Very interesting but a little scary. Here are a few from a 2003 article:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

Thanks for reading.
amaliadubois
Apr. 9th, 2007 10:31 pm (UTC)
i did read up on the subject a while ago but not from current events. i wish i had a better memory so i could discuss/reply... a lot of what you're writing really isn't connecting with what i remember - the causes are more complex. you pull various facts from all over the place that don't seem focused on one aspect at a time and i get confused... rather your point seems to be, like you said, that we are having the wool pulled over our eyes, which, frankly is a part of life...i don't think people with opinions in the public eye are necessarily trying to hoodwink us, i believe they believe what they are saying.
metaphorsbwithu
Apr. 10th, 2007 02:59 pm (UTC)
You're right about the complexity of climate and climate changes. When I write these posts, I'm trying to be a little humorous, a little biting, a little revealing, hoping that a few peope might be curious to look into the subject more deeply.

It's a little like math. You can't discuss solving for two unknowns wothout starting of with the understanding that equals added to equals are equal ... and so on.

You can begin at the main premise, however, that CO2 emissions cause heat to be "trapped" in the atmosphere and temperatures to rise. The evidence indicates it is the other way around. CO2 being less soluble in warm waters, the oceans give up more CO2 when their waters are warmer. The record shows also that CO2 "lags" behind alternating hot and cold periods throughout the ages. Also that CO2, as one of the "greenhouse gases" that prevent the Earth from freezing as they delay the exchange of heat into space, is one of the lesser gases having any impact, far less effect thabn simple clouds, water vapor, mathane, etc.

As I said, it's a fascinating topic and one bit of information leads to another and so on.

You might check up on Al Gore's claim that the Perito Moreno Glacier has been melting away, if you are interested. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do think that some people are sincere when starting out believing certain things, but when they are discovered to be wrong, and they still continue to sing the same song, that indicates to me that they are really intent on pulling the wool over our eyes.
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

August 2014
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Tags

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com