Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: When Physics Trumps Hysteria in Global Warming[/

  1. #1 When Physics Trumps Hysteria in Global Warming[/ 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    When Physics Trumps Hysteria in Global Warming

    by Michael R. Fox, Ph.D.
    July 18, 2007

    Studiously hidden from public view are some extraordinary findings in physics which are providing new understanding of our planetary history, as well as providing a much more plausible scientific understanding of global warming. Regrettably, the current hysteria about global warming is based much more on fear, political agendas, and computer models that don’t agree with each other or the climate, rather than hard-nosed evidence and science.

    The climate forces which have led to the estimated 0.6C degree temperature increase over the past 100 years or more (according to the International Panel on Climate Change) have been assumed to be man-made CO2 emissions from advanced nations including the U.S. We know this can’t be true for several reasons.
    http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/Gr...csTrumps.shtml


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    Scpg, cloud cover has increased over the last hundred years......


    Henrik Svensmark's theory on which Mr Fox bases his argument is wrong, if anything it is masking the full affects of any GW. Also it was not hidden from public view , it received a lot of media coverage and was subject to many tv documentary's.

    Scpg, if you really wish to find something which debunks the MMGW theory perhaps you could look at whether the earth is warming up at all, it is an issue which is genuinely debatable.


    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Most of the hysteria, negative emotion, grandstanding, biased interpretations and the like, that I have seen associated with global warming have come from those in the "anti camp". The thread title is a good example of that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Cat; Cloud cover/rain fall/evaporation rates, I would agree play large rolls in climate activity. However you are going to stretch the point if you try and claim mans activity have caused any change. Very much like any of the GW issues, moisture is as cyclical as any condition, probably much more so or quicker to effects on the planets life.

    During the 30-40's, so call dust bowl days in the US, the world was experiencing much the same drought (which I noticed your chart somewhat shows). However during ice ages, where moisture should be less and the Dino period, tropical conditions implying vast moisture the limits, if possible to accurately chart would show the real extremes.

    As to hysteria coming from the rational side or non-man made GW and natural cycle events IMO is back wards to the reasoning that extreme environmentalist project. Their views alway project catastrophic events unless mankind alone make human sacrifice again the rule of the day.
    We no longer throw babies into volcanoes to appease the gods...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    Well if anyone knows of an accurate graph showing global cloud cover over the last 100 years or so, a link would be greatly appreciated. The reason for the graph was simply to show why cosmic ray's are not the major cause of our recent warming, which was being claimed in the article.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    I diverge from the topic but by seeing the

    "every time government grows it is at the expense of personal liberty" - Ron Paul

    I couldnt help but making a comment about the buzzwords 'freedom' and 'liberty'. If you crash land on a deserted island theres no government, no one to tell you what you can and cant do, total freedom, yeah! Your "free" to do what you want, but you have to spend hours scavenging for food for mere survival, work hard just to have hot water. You are free but have no opportunities, you cant go to the movies, cant go to the restaurant, cant sleep in a clean bed, cant see a doctor if you are ill. Your 'total' freedom is worth crap compared to a balance of responsibilities and opportunities.

    In essence, a government should be about people putting ressources in common to make services for all that each could not afford individually. I cant afford to build a bridge, nor can the guy next door, but with many of us a small amout of ressources allows everyone to build and use a bridge, and that bridge gives us the freedom (or opportunity) to go on the otherside of the river, a 2 million dollar freedom/opportunity that has cost us 20$ each, so by pulling together with the instument of a government by and fr the people you can get more freedom/opportunities than with a me-myself-and-I-Malboro-dude-cowboy-on-the-frontier approach. I guess I'm not a libertarian :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    Your bridge would fall under the government duties as laid out by the Constitution. Our freedoms are taken when the government goes beyond its Constitutional bounds.

    Eminent domain is now being used not for bridges for the public good but to take land from one private owner and to give to another private owner so he can make money. All of this under the heading of public good. Property rights are being taken at an exponential rate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    I agree the government going beyond the constitution is a threat, as is the wiretaping-wateroboarding-almost-kgb-ish attitude of late.

    Im not familiar with the property rights issue but I think patents and intellectual property is going overboard, patents on genes that occur in nature should be banned (its like patenting fire or claiming to own the entire moon because you filed a paper first)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •