The Most Intelligent Statement Made on Global Warming (IMO)...

[ERD50]

...The question that always comes to my mind is how is 16 inches going to flood most of the coastal lands like is be purported. Most of the beaches I've been on have larger swings between the tides....

Good question. I don't know the answer, but i will point out one thing. In the Al Gore movie, "Inconvenient Truth", the scene he dramatizes with all the flooding, and major cities under water and billions of people displaced has nothing whatsoever to do with anything the IPCC is talking about. Al's [-]lies[/-], [-]scare tactics[/-], [-]fear mongering[/-], [-]attention getting[/-] , errrrr, dramatization shows what would happen with a 23 foot rise in sea level. I think the maximum the IPCC has talked about is a 24 inch rise. Oops.

Funny how Al Gore calls on the consensus of scientists when it fits the story he wants to present, and ignores it when it is, ummm, 'inconvenient'?

-ERD50

 

[SamHouston]

Good question. I don't know the answer, but i will point out one thing. In the Al Gore movie, "Inconvenient Truth", the scene he dramatizes with all the flooding, and major cities under water and billions of people displaced has nothing whatsoever to do with anything the IPCC is talking about. Al's [-]lies[/-], [-]scare tactics[/-], [-]fear mongering[/-], [-]attention getting[/-] , errrrr, dramatization shows what would happen with a 23 foot rise in sea level. I think the maximum the IPCC has talked about is a 24 inch rise. Oops.

Funny how Al Gore calls on the consensus of scientists when it fits the story he wants to present, and ignores it when it is, ummm, 'inconvenient'?

-ERD50

Al is all about Al...and politics.

 

[kcowan]

Al is all about Al...and politics.

He did say that his portrayal was based on either the Antarctic or the Greenland land-based ice sheets melting entirely (or both by 50%). But it would have had more credibility if he had said that NO ONE is predicting that happening. Funny he did not show the scenario if both melted entirely. I guess that would be a 46 feet rise.

Do we know when was the last time that scientists correctly predicted anything? AGW proponents are quick to say that this time it's different.

 

[ERD50]

He did say that his portrayal was based on either the Antarctic or the Greenland land-based ice sheets melting entirely (or both by 50%). But it would have had more credibility if he had said that NO ONE is predicting that happening.

Yes, that's is what he says if you listen closely (w/o the disclaimer). I doubt 1/1000 people who watch the film catch that distinction. I have heard people talk about how New York will be under water in 'just a few years - we need to do something!'.

Do we know when was the last time that scientists correctly predicted anything? AGW proponents are quick to say that this time it's different.

Hmmm, I kinda hate to take that approach, it sounds 'head in the sand-ish', but you probably have a good point. I think maybe scientists have not had a good track record when it comes to long term predictions.

Lets see: unmetered nuclear electricity; enough food to feed everyone or the population will increase and everyone will starve by now; we should have run out of oil by now; cancer should be as rare as polio; - there's a few.

It also seems the scientists are maybe not too good at envisioning the unintended consequences. Not to pick on scientists, it's a complex set of interactions, esp when you through social/governmental interaction into the mix.

Flying cars, jet packs? _ mmmm, probably the media more than scientists, I'll give 'em a pass on that one.

-ERD50

 

[Zathras]

Do we know when was the last time that scientists correctly predicted anything? AGW proponents are quick to say that this time it's different.

Well, gravity seemed to be working normally when I woke up this morning. I am alive because a scientist got it right with recombinant dna Insulin. And I seem to recall a number of predictions and warnings regarding New Orleans and its vulnerability to hurricanes.

Sure, you can always come up with examples of misses. However, to ignore all science because every scientist isn't always right seems, silly.

 

[kcowan]

Well, gravity seemed to be working normally when I woke up this morning. I am alive because a scientist got it right with recombinant dna Insulin. And I seem to recall a number of predictions and warnings regarding New Orleans and its vulnerability to hurricanes.

There are a couple of aspects to Katrina. The Army Corps knew that the levies were only good for Cat 3. They told the government. The government failed to act. No one seems to be able to forecast hurricanes.

Scientists make many valuable contributions through their discoveries. Sometimes their explanations are revised with more knowledge. We need to expect that and cut them some slack.

Show me a committee that claims it can forecast the future. I need a laugh today. (Written by a Master of Applied Science - Retired.)

 

[Trek]

A couple links here showing an interesting viewpoint from the President of the Czech Republic and some interesting findings from the Danish National Space Center.

"As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism."

"I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: “future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”.

FT.com / Comment & analysis / Comment - Freedom, not climate, is at risk


The sun and the stars could explain most if not all of the warming this century, and he has laboratory results to demonstrate it. Dr. Svensmark's study had its origins in 1996, when he and a colleague presented findings at a scientific conference indicating that changes in the sun's magnetic field -- quite apart from greenhouse gases -- could be related to the recent rise in global temperatures.

The sun moves climate change

 

[kcowan]

Well I cannot agree with that. I think the IPPC has a great deal of valuable data. It is really important to separate the data from the opinions!

Once they start to forecast the future, I check out!

 

[TromboneAl]

Do we know when was the last time that scientists correctly predicted anything?

I've been thinking about this, and I can't think many cases of a consensus of scientists predicting anything similar to the way in which they are predicting global warming.

The only one I can think of is: There will be a major quake in California in the next 30 years.

Can you think of others?

Things like "Air cars in five years" doesn't count. That's more of the popular press (e.g. Popular Science Magazine) hyping something someone said.