CLIMATE CHANGE: A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Labels: CLIMATE CHANGE, ECOLOGY
UNDERNEWS
Undernews is the online report of the Progressive Review, edited by Sam Smith, who covered Washington during all or part of ten of America's presidencies and who has edited alternative journals since 1964. The Review, which has been on the web since 1995, is now published from Freeport, Maine. We get over 5 million article visits a year. See prorev.com for full contents of our site
96 Maine Street #255
Brunswick ME 04011
202-423-7884
RECENT STORIES
- AUSTRALIAN CITY GETS FIRST SPRING HEAT WAVE SINCE ...
- THE FACE OF FRIENDSHIP IN A NEW CENTURY
- DUNCAN: PRINCIPALS AS CEOS. . . (AND STUDENTS AS J...
- DOES BIGGER MEAN GREENER?
- THE AGING OF AMERIA'S PRISONERS
- STUDY: SWINE FLU EPIDEMIC NOT AS DEADLY AS THOUGHT...
- FOR BANKS, IT'S ABOUT DERIVATIVES, NOT ECOLOGY
- COPENHAGEN CRAP SHOOT
- MORNING LINE
- BREVITAS
LINKS
REVIEW RSS FEED
Your editor has been a musician for many decades. He started the first band his Quaker school ever had and played drums with bands up until 1980 when he switched to stride piano. He had his own band until the mid-1990s and has played with the New Sunshine Jazz Band, Hill City Jazz Band, Not So Modern Jazz Band and the Phoenix Jazz Band.
Here are a few tracks:
SAM SMITH'S DECOLAND BAND
PHOENIX JAZZ BAND
APEX BLUES 
Sam
playing with the Phoenix Jazz Band at the Central Ohio Jazz festival
in 1990. Joining the band is George James on sax. James, then
84, had been a member of the Louis Armstrong and Fats Waller
orchestras and hadappeared on some 60 records. More
notes on James
WISER MAN Sam
piano & vocal
OH MAMA Sam piano & vocal
8 Comments:
If its man-made, explain why warming is also taking place on the other planets according to NASA data? Climate change is driven by sun cycles, just as they've recently found tree rings to be most affected by solar radiation.
I love it when this comment about climate change on other planets comes up. It just encapsulates the mindset of most of the sceptic movement in one neat sentence.
Our data about other planets' weather systems is (I'll be generous) woefully incomplete. We don't live on these other planets, and haven't been taking direct measurements for over 125 years. We don't have borehole samples, ice core samples, large numbers of satellites, large numbers of weather stations scattered about any other planet, or huge numbers of scientists working on the ground across any other planet. We have, in comparison, about 1/1000th of the data we have about earth (like I said, I'll be generous).
Yet our climate change sceptic here believes that this evidence is enough to refute all the evidence that we have about this planet.
You got to love the mental gymnastics people like Mr. Anonymous here have to do in order to refute man-made climate change.
Craig, I just love how you admit our understanding of the other planets climate systems is incomplete, yet you like other climate hysterics are so absolutely certain of what's happening on this planet. Just like our friends at the CRU at East Anglia, who destroyed or "lost" the raw data requested by FOIAs, fudged numbers to "hide the decline", relied on insufficient tree ring data, which has now been shown to be much more greatly affected by solar cycles - just like climate on Earth is - the Sun is the source of almost all our heat, save for the geothermals going on in the core. So much for "all your evidence".
You have NOT proven your case, your models are biased, the scientists actions show bias, the politicans agendas are set to mandate and tax and the financial pirates are salivating over the derivates market for cap-and-trade. Follow the money! Climate hysteria, whether asserting heating or cooling (in the 70's)blaming man's actions, are a SCAM designed to control humanity - period. Same as it ever was!
If you're looking for absolute certainties, you shouldn't be looking at science, you should be looking at religion. No credible scientist will ever tell you that the science has been settled, because it never is.
But going on to your points, it's remarkable at how your argument changes when proven to be stupid. So, let's move on to the rest of what you claim.
Since you think it's to do with the sun, please show me the papers that demonstrate how the peaks and troughs in the solar cycle are linked to the peak's and troughs in the earth's temperature? Oh, wait, you can't, because the studies that have looked at this have demonstrated that temperatures are increasing even when the solar cycle clearly indicates we should have been cooling. This has occurred at least since 1975 (see Usoskin, 2005; Erlykin, 2009, amongst others).
Regarding tree ring data, plenty of other measurements corroborate the evidence without it. If you were so in tune with the scientific evidence you claim to refute, you would know that you can remove tree ring data and still wind up with the same conclusions.
You would also know what "hide the decline" actually meant in context, and why it's not the smoking gun people like you think it is. Removing data you believe to be accurate or insufficient for more accurate data is quite common in science. Regardless, you would also know, for example, that the divergence problem is well documented and discussed in scientific literature. In fact, you wouldn't even know what the hell it was if it weren't for the very scientists you claim are committing fraud, because they discovered it and have discussed it in their publications repeatedly. Yes, in their publications. It's not some big secret that's "hidden" from the world (e.g. see Briffa, at least from 1998, also Briffa again in 2000).
And yet another old sceptic argument about "global cooling", even though it was never predicted by scientists in scientific journals.
About the only thing I may agree with you on are how it will be manipulated by politicians. However, politics is not science, and should have nothing to do with regards to the actual scientific evidence.
Of course, what I meant was "Removing data you believe to be INaccurate or insufficient for more accurate data is quite common in science." My apologies for the typo.
Craig, for all your heated diatribe against me, you still can't prove the "man-made warming" argument. Let's stay on point here and avoid the personal attacks, which are a sure sign you are losing the argument. Try to disprove these facts that all point to the opposite conclusion from yours:
The Earth has been cooling the last 11 years. This was actually admitted by one of the CRU "scientists" in one of the hacked emails in which he admitted it from 1998 to 2005 but that "it didn't matter".
Man's CO2 contribution is at MOST estimated to be 5% and its probably much less. And natural sources are most likely more in variance each year than any increase we have made.
The medieval warm period was MUCH warmer than now - that's when Greenland was GREEN. And that was only about 1000 years ago. Looking back over time, the trendlines are that it traditionally has been much warmer for millions of years between ice ages than the age we are in now.
The brutal truth is that given the BIG picture of temperature changes on this planet, if we did create "global warming" as the hysteria-cultists believe, it should actually be welcomed and embraced, because the next ice age is about 5,000 years overdue based on the record. Cooling is a much greater danger than warming ever will be for civilization.
Again, you have not proven your case. The science is not settled. And you cannot demand the changes you want - and the authoritarian government that would be required to enforce it - and literally impose a death sentence on millions of people. You are the moving party. The burden is on you.
I didn't make any personal attacks. I called your argument stupid, a very different thing to a personal attack. I'm not the one calling YOU a hysterical cultist.
The earth has not been cooling in the last 11 years, yet another factual inaccuracy you've produced. The UK Meteorological Office recently revealed that 2000-2009 is the warmest decade on record, and that 2009 is the fifth-warmest year on record. And guess what, they also said that if you ignore any data from the CRU, you would reach the same conclusion. I suppose the conspiracy is much bigger than we thought!
Regarding the Medieval Warm period, can you prove to me that this regional effect was actually a global one? Oops, no, you can't. Regardless, the NOAA have stated that the medieval warm period was NOT warmer than now, another factual inaccuracy of yours exposed. I suppose they must be in on the conspiracy, too.
The science is not "settled", but I never claimed it was. That's a straw man you've decided to erect because your arguments have no merit. The evidence at the moment indicates that we are responsible. Tomorrow, maybe new evidence will come that will change that view. That's always a possibility. That's how science works.
In fact, your arguments are riddled with inaccuracies, so why should carry on wasting my time here? You clearly have no idea of the science behind it at all, and you clearly have some sort of an agenda here. You've presented no evidence to support YOUR theories, but more importantly, nor have you presented anything to FALSIFY the Man-Made GW hypothesis, which is what you actually need with science.
All you can do is brand people hysterical cultists, so I'm going to brand you an internet troll, because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Have fun on the interwebs, because I'm not playing your little game any more.
Nice try, Craig, but NOTHING in your rant links any supposed warming with man-made causes. You are upset because you and your ilk have been exposed for the radicals that you are, hiding behind junk science.
Reminds me of what a famous old lawyer once said, "If you don't have the law, pound the facts - If you don't have the facts, pound the law - If you don't have either - pound the table."
Post a Comment
<< Home