Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The arguments I've seen on this boil down to place like the NSF vs. Some nutcase rag from Canada.> I haven't seen any arguments like that. The ones I've seen are where one somebody quotes a scientist skeptical of alarmist claims and somebody else says that person doesn't matter because most scientists are in agreement, and that anyone who doesn't see that are intellectually suspect. I'd really like to see something definitive from the NSF that says global warming is human caused and that there are definite steps we can take to reduce it. I've tried Googling the subject and can't find anything remotely like that.
Originally Posted By DlandJB Nuclear's biggest problem is public perception. It is much safer than it used to be an works very well in France, which is about 80% powered by nuclear power. However, there is still that pesky problem with what to do with the nuclear waste.
Originally Posted By jonvn Nuclear power works well all over the world, for the most part. Eventually we'll turn to it out of simple need. I agree, the waste is a major problem. We need a manhattan project type of program NOW to figure out what can be done with it.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ac1c0d6-802a-23ad-4a8c-ee5a888dfe7e&Region_id=&Issue_id=" target="_blank">http://epw.senate.gov/public/i ndex.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ac1c0d6-802a-23ad-4a8c-ee5a888dfe7e&Region_id=&Issue_id=</a> >>Just days before former Vice President Al Gore’s scheduled visit to testify about global warming before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, a high profile climate debate between prominent scientists Wednesday evening ended with global warming skeptics being voted the clear winner by a tough New York City before an audience of hundreds of people. Before the start of the nearly two hour debate the audience polled 57.3% to 29.9% in favor of believing that Global Warming was a “crisisâ€, but following the debate the numbers completely flipped to 46.2% to 42.2% in favor of the skeptical point of view. The audience also found humor at the expense of former Vice President Gore’s reportedly excessive home energy use. After the stunning victory, one of the scientists on the side promoting the belief in a climate "crisis" appeared to concede defeat by noting his debate team was ‘pretty dull" and at "a sharp disadvantage" against the skeptics. ScientificAmerican.com’s blog agreed, saying the believers in a man-made climate catastrophe “seemed underarmed for the debate and, not surprising, it swung against them." The New York City audience laughed as Gore became the butt of humor during the debate. "What we see in this is an enormous danger for politicians in terms of their hypocrisy. I’m not going to say anything about Al Gore and his house. But it is a very serious point," quipped University of London emeritus professor Philip Stott to laughter from the audience. The audience also applauded a call by novelist Michael Crichton to stop the hypocrisy of environmentalists and Hollywood liberals by enacting a ban on private jet travel. "Let’s have the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), the Sierra Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their members, cannot fly on private jets. They must get their houses off the [power] grid. They must live in the way that they’re telling everyone else to live. And if they won’t do that, why should we? And why should we take them seriously?" Crichton said to applause audience.<< >>Skeptical quotes from Novelist Michael Crichton: "I would like to suggest a few symbolic actions that right—might really mean something. One of them, which is very simple, 99% of the American population doesn’t care, is ban private jets. Nobody needs to fly in them, ban them now. And, and in addition, [APPLAUSE] "Let’s have the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), the Sierra Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their members, cannot fly on private jets. They must get their houses off the [electrical] grid. They must live in the way that they’re telling everyone else to live. And if they won’t do that, why should we? And why should we take them seriously? [APPLAUSE]" "I suddenly think about my friends, you know, getting on their private jets. And I think, well, you know, maybe they have the right idea. Maybe all that we have to do is mouth a few platitudes, show a good, expression of concern on our faces, buy a Prius, drive it around for a while and give it to the maid, attend a few fundraisers and you’re done. Because, actually, all anybody really wants to do is talk about it." "I mean, haven’t we actually raised temperatures so much that we, as stewards of the planet, have to act? These are the questions that friends of mine ask as they are getting on board their private jets to fly to their second and third homes. [LAUGHTER]" "Everyday 30,000 people on this planet die of the diseases of poverty. There are, a third of the planet doesn’t have electricity. We have a billion people with no clean water. We have half a billion people going to bed hungry every night. Do we care about this? It seems that we don’t. It seems that we would rather look a hundred years into the future than pay attention to what’s going on now. I think that's unacceptable. I think that’s really a disgrace."<< >>Skeptical quotes of University of London’s emeritus professor of biogeography Philip Stott: "What we see in this is an enormous danger for politicians in terms of their hypocrisy. I’m not going to say anything about Al Gore and his house. [LAUGHTER] But it is a very serious point." "In the early 20th century, 95% of scientists believe in eugenics. [LAUGHTER] Science does not progress by consensus, it progresses by falsification and by what we call paradigm shifts." "The first Earth Day in America claimed the following, that because of global cooling, the population of America would have collapsed to 22 million by the year 2000. And of the average calorie intake of the average American would be wait for this, 2,400 calories, would good it were. [LAUGHTER] It’s nonsense and very dangerous. And what we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes." "Angela Merkel the German chancellor, my own good prime minister (Tony Blair) for whom I voted -- let me emphasize, arguing in public two weeks ago as to who in Annie get the gun style could produce the best temperature. ‘I could do two degrees C said Angela.’ ‘No, I could only do three said Tony.’ [LAUGHTER] Stand back a minute, those are politicians, telling you that they can control climate to a degree Celsius.†“And can I remind everybody that IPCC that we keep talking about, very honestly admits that we know very little about 80% of the factors behind climate change. Well let’s use an engineer; I don’t think I’d want to cross Brooklyn Bridge if it were built by an engineer who only understood 80% of the forces on that bridge. [LAUGHTER]†<< >>Skeptical quotes of MIT’s Professor of Atmospheric Science Richard Lindzen: "Now, much of the current alarm, I would suggest, is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate." "The impact on temperature per unit carbon dioxide actually goes down, not up, with increasing CO2. The role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is not directly related to the emissions rate or even CO2 levels, which is what the legislation is hitting on, but rather to the impact of these gases on the greenhouse effect." "The real signature of greenhouse warming is not surface temperature but temperature in the middle of the troposphere, about five kilometers. And that is going up even slower than the temperature at the surface."<<
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I'm curious. When Darkbeer goes into a restaurant, does he sit there mute and just show the server a copy of a review of the place, making them figure out what he wants?
Originally Posted By DlandJB I'm just in a giddy mood today but the title of this thread "A Major Scientist..." made me think of Darren McGavin in "A Christmas Story" yelping "A major prize! A major prize!"
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/03/solar_global_warming_deniers.html" target="_blank">http://www.americanthinker.com /blog/2007/03/solar_global_warming_deniers.html</a> >>Solar global warming deniers Marc Sheppard "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt." - Mark Twain No, it's not. And a report announced yesterday by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory may have provided further evidence of that axiom - particularly in the never-ending debate over the Sun's role in climate change. In the past, most studies on the subject have relied upon satellite readings and drilled core samples to correlate solar activity to climate shifts. But now, a group of NASA and university scientists have cleverly turned to historical Egyptian records of the annual water level of Earth's longest river - the Nile. As NASA's Joan Feynman explains: "Since the time of the pharaohs, the water levels of the Nile were accurately measured, since they were critically important for agriculture and the preservation of temples in Egypt. These records are highly accurate and were obtained directly, making them a rare and unique resource for climatologists to peer back in time." By then comparing the Nile records to similarly well-ascribed observations of the solar change phenomenon known as an aurora in the Northern Hemisphere over the same periods, definitive connections can be established between the two. As described in the announcement, auroras are: "bright glows in the night sky that happen when mass is rapidly ejected from the sun's corona, or following solar flares. They are an excellent means of tracking variations in the sun's activity." Their occurrences were carefully documented by early observers in Europe and the Far East as they were once believed to portend future disasters. Strangely enough, early superstition may just aid modern science, for it has provided one of the two unconnected sets of measurements with absolutely no hidden agenda to cloud their validity. The first can be used to determine annual rainfall totals, while the second, changes in solar activity during corresponding periods in the same region. And, during the 850 year range studied (622 through 1470 A.D), two rather substantial periods of common variation - one 200 years long -- did, indeed, occur. The climate implications of this, according to the researchers, "extend far beyond the Nile River basin." While the announcement conveys a more detailed look at these implications in understanding global climate change, it ends with this seemingly obvious conclusion: "When solar activity is high, conditions are drier, and when it is low, conditions are wetter." But, as these findings fail to forward the eco-maniacs' childlike insistence that mankind be held accountable for everything, it's unlikely that even the mightiness of the Nile will silence their mighty denial.<< And here is the link to the NASA report <a href="http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features-print.cfm?feature=1319" target="_blank">http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/f eatures-print.cfm?feature=1319</a>
Originally Posted By mrichmondj ^^ Wonders if this NASA report was edited by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney like every other climate report issued from that government agency since 2001.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 That report has to do with wet/dry, not warm/cool. Yet the "American Thinker" (yet another nutjob website Darkbeer links to) headlines it "Solar Global Warming Deniers." It really IS getting to be self-parody.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan <a href="http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/stories/99" target="_blank">http://www.weeklyworldnews.com /stories/99</a> >>GRAND WAZOO, Calif. -- Nuclear physicists announced the world's most energetic collision of musical styles today, in a new reactor powered entirely by Jazz Fusion. "We derive our energy from a rapid succession of smash hits and super critical reactions," said the project's frontman, Doc Wackerman. "And our only waste products are traces of Funk which collect around the pipes in the rhythm section." Despite the efficiency and dynamism of the new power source, some experts worry about Wackerman's achievement. "Jazz Fusion's popularity risks making this potent new power dangerously accessible," said a spokesman for the Vishnu Orchestra. "I want to state that for the record. And I will, in fact, on my own next record The Dangers of Anti-Mridangam." Nevertheless, Fusion is set to electrify much of the West Coast by summer, leaving Wackerman to focus on new challenges in Jazz Physics. The scientist's next project, a high-speed train running exclusively on Smooth Jazz, will coast frictionlessly into stations across America next year.<<
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Wonders if this NASA report was edited by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney like every other climate report issued from that government agency since 2001.> You'll assert anything in your attempts to make Republicans look bad, won't you?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder ^^^^ I'll read this as an admission that any mention of Rove and Cheney makes Republicans look bad.
Originally Posted By jonvn Gee, didn't doug say just the other day how the USGS was ordered to put out some report by Al Gore when he was VP? I guess he'll assert anything in his attempts to make Democrats look bad.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer SENATOR INHOFE OPENING STATEMENT Ranking Member of the EPW Committee Hearing on Vice President Al Gore’s Perspective on Global Warming March 21, 2007 Thank you for holding this hearing, Madame Chairman, and to you also, Mr. Vice President, for agreeing to come before our Committee to testify about your perspectives. Your views are already known to many Americans, but today will allow us to engage in a dialogue which should be interesting. It is my perspective that your global warming alarmist pronouncements are now and have always been filled with inaccuracies and misleading statements. Many of the peer-reviewed studies published in such journals as Nature, Geophysical Research Letters, and Science are radically at odds with your claims. I do not have time to delve into each flaw with your movie, but I do want to touch on just 2. First, you have claimed that there is a “strong, new emerging consensus†linking global warming to an increase in hurricane intensity and duration. Yet last year, the World Meteorological Organization very clearly rejected this assertion, and other scientists agree. Secondly, you said that East Antarctica might melt and this could raise sea levels by 20 feet, so we’re all going to die. However, according to many scientists, Antarctica is gaining ice mass, not losing it. In a 2005 study published in Science a team of researchers led by Dr. Curt Davis found an overall gain in ice mass in Antarctica over a ten year period. And the public is catching on. Even the New York Times last week published an article about scientists, many of them your supporters, who say you have overstated your case on global warming — in fact, they warn that you may be hurting the so-called cause with your "alarmism." Given that, it is no wonder you have turned down the chance to debate the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus. And now I understand a debate challenge has been issued by Lord Monckton of Benchley. Now there is a reason for this. When the debate is balanced, skeptics win, alarmists lose. In New York last week, for instance, a major debate took place to examine whether global warming is a crisis. Prior to the debate, the hand-wringers, the alarmists, in the audience outnumbered those who didn’t think it was a crisis 2 to 1. After the debate, the alarmists were outnumbered – a major turnaround in beliefs in a single night. That shift mirrors a larger one taking place in the scientific community. Claude Allegre, a French geophysicist – Nir Shaviv, an Israeli astrophysicist – and meteorologist Reid Bryson have converted from alarmists to believing that climate variability is largely natural. In short, the ranks of converted scientists are skyrocketing. Lastly, the cost: Global warming is now big business. Thousands of individuals and even some Fortune 100 companies stand to make tens of billions of dollars. I was on the floor opposing the ’93 Clinton-Gore tax increase of $32 billion, but the cost of Kyoto and other CO2 reduction schemes are estimated to be over $300 billion, ten times the cost of your ’93 tax increase. And who’s paying for it? Those on fixed incomes and the poor, who as a percent of their monthly budget spend five times more on energy than the average household. Largest tax increase in history – 10 times Clinton-Gore of ’93 and the poor pay for it… and the science isn’t there. We just can’t do that to America, Mr. Vice President… and we’re not gonna.
Originally Posted By jonvn It makes you wonder: 1) What he thinks he is accomplishing. 2) What is missing in his life that he does this.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Interesting that in an "opening statement," someone would draw conclusions about the testimony they are about to hear before they have even heard it. Bizarre.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It makes you wonder: 1) What he thinks he is accomplishing. 2) What is missing in his life that he does this." Any coward can do the gutless thing and post links without commenting, hiding behind the words and thoughts of others. It takes the courage of your convictions to put your own thoughts out there for others to dissect, criticize, discuss or commend. From Dabob to DouglasDubh to jonvn to DlandDug to gadzuux to ecdc to JohnS1 to wahooskipper and everyone in between, all the posters here, save one, have that courage.
Originally Posted By jonvn It is simply a very odd and pointless exercise. Does anyone actually read these clips? After being told by I think everyone that no one reads them, he persists in putting them here. Why? It's just kind of weird if you ask me.
