Radicals!
How Much Do Human Activities Contribute to Global Warming?
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
By Brit Hume
Climate scientists from three American universities have published peer-reviewed research indicating global warming cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases — and that current greenhouse computer models saying otherwise are wrong. The report in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society was written by professors from the universities of Rochester, Alabama and Virginia.
Lead author David Douglass of Rochester writes — "The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."
The report says satellite data indicates greenhouse computer models ignore the mitigating effects of clouds and water vapor on the warming properties of carbon dioxide. It says climate change is most likely caused by variations in solar winds and associated magnetic fields.
A senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress tells Cybercast News the study is "radically out of step with the complete scientific consensus."
Note by Republicus: lol Of course.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
By Brit Hume
Climate scientists from three American universities have published peer-reviewed research indicating global warming cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases — and that current greenhouse computer models saying otherwise are wrong. The report in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society was written by professors from the universities of Rochester, Alabama and Virginia.
Lead author David Douglass of Rochester writes — "The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."
The report says satellite data indicates greenhouse computer models ignore the mitigating effects of clouds and water vapor on the warming properties of carbon dioxide. It says climate change is most likely caused by variations in solar winds and associated magnetic fields.
A senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress tells Cybercast News the study is "radically out of step with the complete scientific consensus."
Note by Republicus: lol Of course.
posted by John | 2:33 AM
15 Comments:
"global warming cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases — and that current greenhouse computer models saying otherwise are wrong"
is false.
The publication says no such thing. The title of the article by David Douglass is "A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions"
saying that this study says climate change is most likely caused by variations in solar winds and associated magnetic fields.
is likewise false.
Whatever the authors said in an interview or in their press release, this conclusion is not argued in their paper.
check yourself
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/117857349/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Hi Neo. okay.
Alright. So you're going to tell the authors of the publication that what they're saying about their own work is false, based upon what you interpret their own work to be saying?
Do you have a theory why they would suddenly make false statements about what they themselves wrote?
From Dr Douglass' own website
Prof. Douglass interests have been in the general area of Experimental Condensed Matter Physics. His work has involved experiments in the areas of liquid helium and superconductivity (both low temperature and high temperature). Significant contributions have also been made in the field of gravitational wave detectors. Prof. Douglass has also worked on chaos and frequency drifts of spectral lines of extended sources.
Know your sources - a climate expert????
As far as the authors assertions, I'll let real climate scientists explain that to you
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/
Meanwhile... while you and Brit Hume pretend this is all made up
NASA scientists said the Arctic's thick, year-round sea ice cover has diminished 23 percent during the past two winters
Between winter 2005 and winter 2007, the Arctic's perennial ice cover shrunk by an area the size of Texas and California combined,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14818649/
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:GN4HhrFhDv4J:meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Nghiem/rapid_reduction_of_Arctic_perennial_sea_ice.pdf+Nghiem+science+arctic&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us
I don't pretend it's "made up."
question:
if the ice caps are melting, why is this happening?
"This undated photo provided by the International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery, known as TIGHAR, shows historic aircraft specialists inspecting a World War II fighter plane recently found on the Welsh coast. The American P-38 aircraft had made an emergency landing in 1942 after it ran out of gas, and was buried under water and sand for 65 years until revealed by beach erosion in July. Experts hope to recover the plane for a British military museum. The photo was taken from a kite-suspended camera. (AP Photo/TIGHAR)"
it would seem the plane (and other various things being seen at the surface of the ocean) would be FURTHER under water, no? questioning the obvious is so "no go" to a moonbat.
i stole this from brooke...
check this out.
Interesting, Nanc, thank you.
Well, Neo, I have changed my mind about some things. For one, I thought deforestation was a greater "manmade" CO2 creator than Detroit or the Jersey turnpike was, and I considered the "Save Our Rainforests" movements to have some practicality, after all (and not just sheer sentimentality).
Then I learned that the wetlands annually produced more greenhouse gas than ALL HUMAN SOURCES COMBINED (Doh!).
And I wouldn't be surprised if the average U.S.--if not global-- temperature has decreased in 2007 (which, of course, means a cooler climate, no?).
Anyway, the Global Warming movement is in trouble, Neo. I'd get off that ship if I were you.
YOU are absotively going to LOVE this!
Wow! Why isn't this all over the news?
you tell me, john.
the truth confounds them.
it's like catching your child with their hands in the cookie jar - as long as they keep eye contact with you, they think you don't see them with your periferal(sp?) vision - they need a good, hard smack on the hands to bring them back to reality.
trust me, i had to do this with my own granddaughter after i'd scolded her as a toddler for touching electrical cords - she was warned at least two times and then SMACK! i call it the two-finger stinger - worked with mine and it worked with her.
canada will lead the way in bringing our own country to full-tilt greendom - they're paying big bucks in subsidies to contractors for ANYTHING GREEN - ANYTHING. even those things that will take eons to pay for themselves.
john - when you get in a serious g.w. conversation, go here - this is where we found...you know who...
and if you get the chance, check out his heritage foundation speech - you will be pleasantly amazed.
read this and weep, libtards!
lol Be careful when debating them, Nanc. Cornered animals are especially vicious.
Post a Comment
<< Home