 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Seems some leading proponents of global warming are having a change of mind. |
| From: | |
lurker
|
posted
Thu, Sep 24 2009, 11:11am
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: Seems some leading proponents of global warming are having a change of mind. |
| From: | |
herdtrackerV2
|
posted
Thu, Sep 24 2009, 8:38pm
|
Scientists failed to make the connection with the economy.
Stock market crashes. Factories close. Pollutants go down. Earth cools. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: Seems some leading proponents of global warming are having a change of mind. |
| From: | |
Ursustyrannis
|
posted
Fri, Sep 25 2009, 12:01am
|
I hate to be devil's advocate here Herdtracker, but look at these quotes.
"Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference--an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change -- Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."
And the columnist's quip as far as I know, is correct.
"In the past year, two other groups of scientists--one in Germany, the second in the United States--have come to the same conclusion: Warming is on hold, likely because of a cooling of the Earth's upper oceans, but it will resume.
But how is that knowable? How can Latif and the others state with certainty that after this long and unforeseen cooling, dangerous man-made heating will resume? They failed to observe the current cooling for years after it had begun, how then can their predictions for the resumption of dangerous warming be trusted?
My point is they cannot. It's true the supercomputer models Latif and other modellers rely on for their dire predictions are becoming more accurate. But getting the future correct is far trickier. Chances are some unforeseen future changes will throw the current predictions out of whack long before the forecast resumption of warming."
I'm a fence-sitter in the AGW debate. For me, environmental destruction, destruction of resources, the need for public transit and the need for cheap clean renewable energy sources are a much,much bigger and clearly defined issue. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: Seems some leading proponents of global warming are having a change of mind. |
| From: | |
Guodzilla
|
posted
Fri, Sep 25 2009, 8:15pm
|
The biggest problem I have with GW is that the earth was once warmer. A LOT, LOT warmer. So warm, in fact, that the polar ecosystems didn't exist, and there were jungles the world over, and deciduous forests in the same latitudes that caribou graze at and Walrus play at in the world today. This world existed about 55 million years ago, during the mid-Eocene. It was about FIFTY degrees warmer than today overall, and we're allegedly experiencing increasing temperatures at about the rate of one degree every year.
For Pete's sake, all you critics, PLEASE shut your mouths and THINK first, before panicking!
(Note that I did NOT say be complacent about world husbandry and conservation. That's out of the question. There will never be room for complacency, only prudency and common-sense) |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
