Comments on: An Olympic-sized carbon footprint

By: Straight_Talk_Luigi

Straight_Talk_Luigi — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:09:50 +0000

You know, the hypocrisy of environmental scaremongers becomes more transparent every day.

Indeed, and it makes my job harder. How are we environmental scientists and students supposed to reach out to people when they are all running around like ninnies?

I wonder how CO2 Burning Man puts out.

It’s a technology challenge the U S of A is fully up to.

As long as we keep getting foreign scientists from Asia, Germany and the UK, you know, the ones who actually want to study in college and not replace the three Rs exclusively with tolerance and diversity.

We all know most American students are too lazy to study that in detail anyhow.

By: Danceswithdachshunds

Danceswithdachshunds — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:33:40 +0000

IF .. one were to apply the statistical correlation model approach employed by the IPCC that led them to their so called ‘consensus’ that human CO2 causes global warming, you could easily ‘prove’ that drinking water causes cancer. It is impossible to disprove such a theory because everyone who gets cancer has drank water. The fact that the majority of people who drink water do not get cancer does nothing to disprove that theory anymore than the fact that there has been no further global warming in the last ten years does anything to disprove the theory that human CO2 causes global warming. In either case, the submitter of the theory need only declare that there are additional complex and ‘poorly understood’ factors still being studied that apparently affect the theoretical relationship, (as the IPCC clearly indicates within their most recent report for example). Therefore, be certain everyone that you run the risk of getting cancer if you continue to drink water every bit as much as you run the risk of causing global warming if you continue to emit CO2. But also be certain that if you stop drinking water, (in any form), you will not get cancer because you’ll be dead from dehydration. And such is the destiny of our economy if we let our government continue making policy based upon an Al Gore and Maurice Strong fantasy cooked up to make them both very rich. The lunacy must stop.

By: conservativesRus

conservativesRus — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:28:59 +0000

LGM – your “equating” the modeling of a CAT or MRI with that of temperature prediction shows a total lack of understanding of the subject matter. I’ll try to be very simple here: In one, they take “measurements of a signal” (or changes in that measurement) and then “build a 3-d mathematical model”. About the only thing that type of modeling has in common with any weather modeling is both use computers. Weather forecast modeling (whether for hurricane path prediction, tomorrow’s weather or global temperature forecasting) is much more of a finite element analysis problem. And you’ll notice how astoundingly accurate they are with predictions of tomorrow’s weather or the path’s of hurricanes.
That is not to say finite element analysis is inherently inaccurate. It isn’t. I have used it many many times as a tool in my career and accurately “predicted” behavior of something I was trying to design. It is though, ONLY as good as the assumptions upon which it is based.

By: graysonret

graysonret — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:00:25 +0000

As long as there is power to gain and money to make, global warming will be with us, regardless of the facts. Many people think warming is something new. It isn’t. 1000 a.d. we had massive global warming. I noticed the polar bears survived just fine. In fact, that warming period was a boon to civilization. And no, Greenland isn’t called that, to attract viking “tourists” as some people have claimed. We then entered a global cooling period (a mini-ice age) that caused a lot of suffering. Climate changes all the time. We don’t need greedy, power-seeking people harping doom and gloom, to push their socialist ideas on us. El Nino and El Nina are examples too. It’s all the same. “We all going to die, send money”.

By: DaveC

DaveC — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:07:07 +0000

Little Gray Matter.. #48

The most prestigious and broadest base scientific organization in the US believes that humans are causing severe global warming. Yes, they use computer models. Scientists, the best in the US, have a better idea when to trust computer models and when not to.

Are those the same computer models that when data from the 1960s and 1970s entered into it, it still showed the same prediction of severe global warming in the 1980s and 1990s? And is the computer code available to be checked out by anyone else?..

You should check out a few things that Julian L. Simon.. he was called the ‘Doomslayer’.. ‘Wired’ magazine (hardly a right of center publication) had a nice write up about him..

you might learn a thing or two.. but I’m not holding my breath..

as far as CO2 being at high levels.. expect high plant growth to set in soon to take care of that.. it how mother earth takes care of herself.. been doing that for QUITE some time, from what I’ve been told..

By: DaveC

DaveC — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 03:55:17 +0000

#25

where a former swimsuit contestant and present weather girl kept saying “It’s real Larry, it’s real” while Bill Nye “The Science Guy” kept shouting down an MIT Professor

how the left debates is like how a moron (lgm) talks to someone in another language..

you speak louder and longer at the person..

By: Yashmak

Yashmak — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:01:23 +0000

Trying to compare CAT scans and MRI to prediction and analysis of global weather patterns?

You astound me lgm.

NASA is considered one of the leading scientific organizations in the US too, and they’ve admitted to numerous errors in recorded temperatures that these studies by the NRC were based on. Hell, NASA has lost probes to Mars because they didn’t make a conversion from metric to English measurements properly. The smartest of us make mistakes. . .and as the saying goes, “none of us is as dumb as all of us”.

Again, if the assumptions in the computer model are wrong, the output will be wrong. It doesn’t matter HOW many scientists you have working it, or how advanced the computer model.

By: lgm

lgm — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:37:04 +0000

conservativesRus said (#46):

Can he please show me a cause and effect relationship between any human activity and global temperature?

The most prestigious and broadest base scientific organization in the US believes that humans are causing severe global warming. Yes, they use computer models. Scientists, the best in the US, have a better idea when to trust computer models and when not to. By the way, CAT scans and MRI use computer modeling. Neither would work without computers.

By: SHoward

SHoward — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:02:36 +0000

Seems to me like one great way to significantly reduce carbon output is to go nuclear for electrical power.

Comrade Fonda educated us in “The China Syndrome” so that we never destroy the earth inadvertantly.

By: conservativesRus

conservativesRus — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:01:45 +0000

I’m puzzled by lgm’s post. Can he please show me a cause and effect relationship between any human activity and global temperature? Note: I did not say, show me a computer model. As one with advanced engineering degrees, I will tell you computer models are ONLY as good as the ASSUMPTIONS upon which they are based. To my knowledge of the subject, ?all? of the models upon which GW are based, ASSUME GW occurs. So duh – guess what result the models produce.

By: graysonret

graysonret — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:55:00 +0000

When Al Gore and his worshippers get the U.N. to ban all volcanoes and make it stick, along with methane bubbling in the oceans, then I’ll pay attention to human carbon emissions. Until then, I’ll use my car, electricity and my charcoal bbq to my heart’s content.

By: DaveC

DaveC — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:33:38 +0000

On April 10th, 2008 at 4:05 pm, lgm said:

Sometimes you have to act when there is not airtight proof (pun intended), only lots of evidence.

When you put it that way, it sounds almost like a ~~cult~~ religion..

By: jungatheart

jungatheart — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:28:39 +0000

Thanks Granite. I hate feeling stupid but it’s better than being wrong.

By: lgm

lgm — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:05:58 +0000

HeatherRadish said (#41):

Anthropogenic global warming DOESN’T EXIST, therefore nothing I do can cause it. So it seems I’m plenty green already!

Sometimes you have to act when there is not airtight proof (pun intended), only lots of evidence. That’s the case you make to got to war over sketchy evidence of WMDs.

By: HeatherRadish

HeatherRadish — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:56:22 +0000

Being green doesn’t mean sitting at home doing nothing. It means finding ways to do the things you want to do without causing global warming.

Anthropogenic global warming DOESN’T EXIST, therefore nothing I do can cause it. So it seems I’m plenty green already!