Conflicting stories...

[Brock]

Reading through news and I see one story that says Nevada temps on rise and is evidence of global warming.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070725/ap_on_sc/warmer_nevada_1

 

"The average temperature in Reno from June through August last year was 75.6 degrees, almost 7 degrees above the 30-year average, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group reported. The gap was the biggest measured nationally.

 

So Reno is less populated and industrial than Las Vegas right?

 

 

So then the next article I happen across is from NOAA and says Las Vegas is experiencing lower than average temps this past decade.

 

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/vef/climate/figure8.php

 

It showed that avg max temp in 1940s was 81.3 but for past 30 years it has been 79.9 WTF....just proves that depending on your agenda you can say what you want but the City of Sin is not experiencing global warming.

 

I tend to believe that the earth experiences normal fluctuations in temperature caused by many factors just as it has during the era of its youth up through Ice Age then heat wave of Dark Ages to what was being called a Mini-Ice Age in 70s to now the cry of global devastation. I say HOGWASH....for every scientific report someone finds that says Global Warming is valid...I can find another reputable scientific report that shows it is not happening.

 

Of the two sources above I am most likely to believe NOAA rather than Yahoo and Univ of Nevada...and selecting a single year as hottest does not confirm a long term trend but rather a spike in the normal fluctuation of temperature and weather that has been experienced through the ages. In my unscientific opinion which by the way is just as valid and educated as that of Al Gore or Bono....

Edited July 26, 2007 by Brock

[homer]

just another politicized issue...we may never know all the facts because it's become so politicized.. if reagan woulda started it the dems would be finding "proof" that it doesn't exist or is not as serious.

 

personally, i think there may be something to it (in addition to the normal flucuations).....may or may not be as serious as some say.

in either case, we should be somewhat mindful of how we treat the planet--but what do i care? by the time most of the bad stuff could happen i'll be dead...i'll keep recycling..and driving my yukon....but turning off all the lights, except when i'm in the house at nite with the thermostat on 68....

 

i guess the difference is i don't hate anyone for having their ipinion one way or the other tho...to each his own...

eric

[Pop]

Now look. Global warming is a issue near and dear to me. You betcha there's global warming and we need to do something about it RFN.

These coal fired powerhouses belching flumes of black soot into the atmosphere ain't no good.

Peoples and chilluns got to breath that foul stanky air. It's a national shame.

 

I just happen to represent some scrubber technologies that, while very pricey on the front end, demonstrate good reduction in VOX and hydrocarbon emissions.

Pop is always happy to help globally conscious industries by offering my expertise to help them clean up their emissions and offer a better future to they chilluns... for a fee.

 

PM me for details.

 

Lecture fees tax deductable.

[Last Resort]

The truth is out there if you want to find it

 

Click Here

 

1 + 1 = 2

 

Even if 1,000 people say 1 + 1 = 3

and only 3 people say 1 + 1 = 2

1 + 1 will always equal 2

The truth is not always some where in the middle.

 

 

ALL TEN of the propositions listed below must be proven true if the climate-change "consensus" is to be proven true. The first article considers the first six of the listed propositions and draws the conclusions shown. The second article will consider the remaining four propositions.

 

Proposition Conclusion

 

1. That the debate is over and all credible climate scientists are agreed. False

2. That temperature has risen above millennial variability and is exceptional. Very unlikely

3. That changes in solar irradiance are an insignificant forcing mechanism. False

4. That the last century's increases in temperature are correctly measured. Unlikely

5. That greenhouse-gas increase is the main forcing agent of temperature. Not proven

6. That temperature will rise far enough to do more harm than good. Very unlikely

7. That continuing greenhouse-gas emissions will be very harmful to life. Unlikely

8. That proposed carbon-emission limits would make a definite difference. Very unlikely

9. That the environmental benefits of remediation will be cost-effective. Very unlikely

10. That taking precautions, just in case, would be the responsible course. False

[homer]

zactly Pop..soon as Haliburton can get rich offa global warming it'll be vogue..lol...

i love the smell of shit stirring in the morning..

eric

[MOE]

zactly Pop..soon as Haliburton can get rich offa global warming it'll be vogue..lol...

i love the smell of shit stirring in the morning..

eric

is haliburton responsible for everything?? hell i never heard of them til cheny became vp. who screwed shit up 8 years ago???

[homer]

is haliburton responsible for everything?? hell i never heard of them til cheny became vp. who screwed shit up 8 years ago???

yes and haliburton (or reagan fallout)...but everything was just fine 8 years ago...the trouble started 6-7 years ago...lol

eric

[Brock]

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editori...270256634686203

 

 

Investor's Business Daily

 

View Archive | Printer Version

 

Tempest In A Teapot

 

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

 

Posted 7/25/2007

 

Global Warming: A private firm's downgrade of its hurricane forecast raises an obvious question: If scientists can't get near-future projections in a limited area right, how can they predict the climate decades from now?

 

Related Topics: Global Warming

 

A reasonable response is: They can't. But the global warming climate of fear did not blow in on the soft breezes of reason, but by the storm winds of emotion.

 

Forecaster WSI Corp. said Tuesday that the season ending Nov. 30 will bring 14 named storms, six of which will grow into hurricanes, three of them major. WSI's initial forecast was for 15 named storms, eight hurricanes and four majors.

 

Why the change? "Because," said WSI forecaster Todd Crawford, "ocean temperatures have not yet rebounded from the significant drop in late spring."

 

Could it be that the 2007 hurricane season is turning out to be as overrated as 2006? Remember last year's predictions — that we were in for a brutal spell of storms? It had been quiet, they said, and we were due for a series of Katrina-like hurricanes. But as we wrote last November, as the much-dreaded '06 season whimpered to a close, the storm year came in like a lamb and went out the same way.

 

For years, the Greenshirts have told us that emissions of carbon dioxide resulting from man's addiction to fossil fuel-based energy are turning the planet into a sweltering hothouse. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change has projected a temperature increase of 2 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit for the 21st century due to the greenhouse effect.

 

As a result, alarmists say, ice caps will melt, glaciers will thaw and sea levels will rise as much as 20 feet, causing floods and death in low-lying areas. Storms are also predicted to increase in both frequency and intensity.

 

To prevent this coming Category 5 cataclysm, we're supposed to shell out trillions of dollars and gladly adopt Spartan lifestyles. Instead of trying, as their grandparents did, to see how many bodies they can squeeze into a telephone booth, today's college kids are expected to see how many they can get in a Prius.

 

Yet the fact remains: The local weatherman can't forecast more than about 10 days out, and neither can the experts tell us how warm, or cool, the planet is going to be in 2100, 2075 or even 2050.

 

Even short-term predictions have been off. James Hansen, NASA scientist, predicted a 0.45-degree Celsius (0.81-degree Fahrenheit) rise in global temperature from 1988 to 1997. But in reality (a place environmental activists rarely visit) the increase was a mere 0.11-degree Celsius.

 

We hope no one in Hansen's neighborhood relies on him to tell them when it's going to rain or when they'll need a coat and hat.

 

Setting aside the hubristic notion that alarmists know what the right temperature is, too many other factors besides the greenhouse effect influence climate for them to declare they know exactly, or even approximately, what's coming. Solar activity, for instance, is among the most powerful, as are the El Nino and La Nina phenomena.

 

We also question the concept of a "global" temperature. How could such a thing be measured when weather stations dot rather than blanket the Earth? Danish physicist Bjarne Andresen, a professor at the University of Copenhagen, made sense earlier this year when he said it's "impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth.

 

"A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system (and) climate is not governed by a single temperature," he said. "Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. , which make up the climate."

 

The formula for a climate of fear, though, requires nothing more than a lot of thunder and a bit of heat generated by political activists.

 

Return to top of page

 

 

 

 

© Investor's Business Daily, Inc. 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction or redistribution is prohibited without prior authorized permission from Investor's Business Daily. For information on reprints, webprints, permissions or back issue orders, go to www.investors.com/terms/reprints.asp.

Edited July 26, 2007 by Brock