Article

2003-11-05 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Vindication for science: EnviroMENTALists are lying about Kyoto

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by badanov 2003-11-05 9:04:29 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Vlad likes the idea of warmer weather.

So do I. I rather relish the thought of being able to scoot around on my motorcycle more days out of the year.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2003-11-5 11:00:03 AM|| 2003-11-5 11:00:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Ummm, you might head over to Calpundit, where there is a different view (scroll down, might in his archives by now): apparently the original authors have responded and have said that these guys are all wet and made some fundamental errors. Apparently that's true.

Posted by Steve White 2003-11-5 11:39:06 AM|| 2003-11-5 11:39:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I live in the Tacoma area and have just been through the most fabulous spring and summer. If this is Global Warming, bring it on. Sadly PST has brought with it a very cold snap, Oh well. If I could bring back the Ice Age would you all still love me. Damn, gotta go$

Posted by Lucky 2003-11-5 12:29:37 PM|| 2003-11-5 12:29:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 See my comments on solar flares.
Enviros tend to ignore the blindingly obvious.

Posted by Dishman 2003-11-5 12:38:55 PM|| 2003-11-5 12:38:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Yeah - bad math, so what?

In case no one noticed, both icecaps are melting hand over fist. The weather in Tacoma isn't going to be that great when it's 30 feet under water, though with Tacoma, that'd be an improvement.

Posted by Mercutio 2003-11-5 1:56:00 PM|| 2003-11-5 1:56:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Mercutio, you need to do a bit more research. According to a couple of major scientific sites, the ice in Antarctica is THICKENING, not thinning. The Arctic "melt-down" happens from time to time - say every 33 years or so, due to variations in the solar output.

Kyoto was a blatant attempt to destroy US productivity, which is why the majority of the burden to "reduce CO2" fell on the US, while the third-world nations, some whose CO2 output is almost the same as that of the US, got a pass.

Two very good sites for information about CO2 and Climate change are Envirotruth (http://www.envirotruth.org) and CO2 Science Magazine (http://www.co2science.org/). Most of the stuff published "proving" global warming is hokum, exposed by these two sites. There are many, many other sites also devoted to proving/disproving global warming. These are the best, IMHO.

Sea levels do change, but the current changes, if any, are not caused by man-induced 'global warming'. The SUN plays 99% of the role in climate change, as demonstrated by more than thirty independent studies.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-11-5 2:07:30 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2003-11-5 2:07:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Isn't it true that something like 97% of the CO2 comes from Natural sources? (I.e. cow burps, the earth itself, etc....).

Posted by CrazyFool 2003-11-5 2:19:02 PM|| 2003-11-5 2:19:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 A key requirement of the scientific method is that the results must be reproducible by others when the same procedure is used. Example: cold fusion, which was never reproduced by other scientists under controlled conditions.

When McIntyre & McKitrick attempted to do this (with Mann's help, incidentally), and were unable to reproduce the results using the same methodology used by Mann, they decided to conduct an audit of Mann's data and found many discrepencies in it. After fixing those errors and redoing the analysis, the results were still fundamentally different -- the supposedly unique increase in temperatures in the 20th century isn't unique, after all.

Mann's response (summary "you're all wet"), and the authors' response to *that* can be found on-line at this location. Although the original paper is pretty technical, the critiques & responses are quite readable. I'd suggest reading just the first couple sections of the original, then go to the linked critiques...

If you're interested, that is...

Posted by snellenr 2003-11-5 2:20:18 PM|| 2003-11-5 2:20:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 I hope the sea levels drop again so I can find some decent spear points.

Posted by Shipman 2003-11-5 4:28:40 PM|| 2003-11-5 4:28:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Arctic ice has exactly zero impact on sea levels, unless it somehow becomes thick enough or large enough that it grounds. Last time that happened, it also accumulated over most of North America and Europe.
Antarctic and Greenland glaciation does matter. My understanding is that the critical balance is snowfall versus sublimation. Increased sea temperatures actually shift that balance towards thicker ice.

Posted by Dishman 2003-11-5 5:57:57 PM|| 2003-11-5 5:57:57 PM|| Front Page Top

12:32 alaskasoldier
08:34 Brian (MN)
07:53 B
04:42 Super Hose
04:08 Bulldog
04:01 Bulldog
00:12 NotMikeMoore
00:07 NotMikeMoore
23:56 NotMikeMoore
23:52 Uncle Joe
23:51 Alaska Paul
23:46 Grunter
23:46 NotMikeMoore
23:40 NotMikeMoore
23:36 Bomb-a-rama
23:34 NotMikeMoore
23:30 NotMikeMoore
23:29 Mike Kozlowski
23:22 Dev
23:19 marek
23:15 NotMikeMoore
23:04 NotMikeMoore
23:01 NotMikeMoore
22:55 NotMikeMoore