THE GLOBAL WARMING ISSUE
In an editorial State Senator Bryant alludes global warming is a hoax because of emails from a few climate scientists discussing the manipulation of their data. Science like other professions has individuals whose integrity and ethics are questionable. The vast majority of climate scientists are responsible and dedicated individuals who are reporting their data with integrity. No matter how climate change data is reported or interpreted there are two facts that can’t be misinterpreted. First, fossil fuel is finite. This alone should be reason to develop alternative energy sources. Secondly, the world population is increasing which translates into increased burning of fossil fuels. There is a limit on how much carbon the oceans and atmosphere can absorb. The time to develop alternative energy sources is now not when we reach saturation levels of carbon which may be catastrophic to our way of life!
Bryant also alludes that global warming advocacy will lead to “global government because, after all, how can you stop a global problem if you have independent nations”? What is a global government? Is the United Nations a global government? Are nations working together to solve common problems a global government? Independent nations have successfully worked together to reduce the levels of chlorofluorcarbons that cause the depletion of the atmospheric ozone. Global warming is a complex and serious issue which will require nations to work together in order to develop comprehensive and equitable solutions that ensure the sustainability of our planet.
Liberty
[...] See the original post: global warming counter « Sen. Kevin Bryant: blog from the backbench [...]
And your point is?
1) How correct Richard Hilderman is?
2) That he misquoted you?
3) That you are a complete idiot?
My vote is for #3.
Fossil fuel is finite–but the resources at are disposal are far greater than Congress will admit, and are unfortunately kept bottled up by the idiots we have in Congress. ANWR, for example.
I’m all for innovation and finding better and cleaner ways of fueling our energy needs, but as with everything else I believe that where a _true_ need exists, the private sector has historically done a far better job at driving technology than the U.S. Government! More government is not the answer, it is the problem.
These “bad apple” scientists who you say are in every scientific field are not obscure or insignificant people in this particular field of study. The University of East Anglia Climactic Research Unit has been one of the FOREMOST, LEADING centers of study in the climate change debate! When the _leaders_ are revealed to be using fraudulent data, it calls into question the entire theory and it needs to be re-examined.
In addition, what happened to scientific skepticism and peer review? Why are climate skeptics getting the cold shoulder? Skepticism used to be a badge of honor.
NASA Administrator Michael Griffen stated in 2007 “unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political than technical, and it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it.” (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19058588/)
My understanding is that the authors of those emails were more than just a couple of wayward scientists. If my facts are correct, the emails came from a very influential center of global warming study. That - and many other details the emails reveal - should lead everything they have done in the past to be subtracted from the picture at present, until the situation can be investigated and proven to be a major conspiracy, or a couple of wayward scientists.
As to the global government issue, there’s a difference between alliances and governments. Alliances respect individual sovereignty and have clear limits. The details of the proposed “treaty” that was discussed at Copenhagen recently should dispel all doubts that the desired “alliance” will respect national sovereignty. It looked a lot more like the precursor to a one-world government.
All average global temperatures since 1895 are accurately predicted (standard deviation of concurrent measured minus predicted temperatures since 1900 is 0.064 C) by a simple model using the first law of thermodynamics and the time-integral (same as ‘running total’ if time steps are equal) of sunspot count.
The effective sea surface temperature oscillation (zero change over a period) was discovered. There was no need to consider any change to the level of CO2 or any other greenhouse gas. Climate change is natural.
The model, with an eye-opening graph, is presented in the October 16 pdf at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true. (The integral of the PDO Index http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest indicates a substantial measure of sea surface temperatures as does the time-integral of ENSO 3.4 but not all so replace all references to PDO with ESST for Effective Sea Surface Temperature).
This model predicted the ongoing temperature decline trend. None of the 20 or so models that the IPCC uses do.
The Argo float ocean temperature measurements show that global warming stopped in about 2004 (graph on pp4 of http://www.oceanobs09.net/plenary/files/Wijffels_HeatContentTemperature_2Aa_vfinal.pdf ).
You are all a bunch of idiots.
Well, well, well. New year, same old ranting. “You are all a bunch of idiots.” Yeah, yeah…and…yo momma. What a pathetic stooge. Do you have anything of substance to say? Anything? Could you at least visit the Huffington Post and cut and paste something intelligible?
AP) – Dec 12, 2009
LONDON — E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.
The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
Kevin Bryant’s comments are embarrassing. He reflects the mentality of those in our General assembly who spread political ideology instead of studying the facts and reaching objective conclusions.
see: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRa5F7Lv_zO0ZKaHmbQENlyV3KdgD9CHUS980
“E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data….”
“However, the exchanges don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.”
Then, why do it?
Oh, and they not only “Stonewalled skeptics and discussd hiding data, but also they fabricated data with the “Nature trick” invented by the guy that brought us the utterly discredited Hockey Stick. How did the AP miss that one?
Good on you Mr. Bryant for presenting dissenting opinion without framing or distortion. I’m totally impressed and I tip my hat off to you.
Of course I completely agree with Mr. Hilderman’s assessment of global warming and I think your dressing down was well deserved. But the fact that you posted his rebuttal so prominently and without obfuscation speaks volumes. Again, good job.
[...] Kevin Bryant | Global warming counter [...]
All average global temperatures since 1895 are accurately predicted (standard deviation of concurrent measured minus predicted temperatures since 1900 is 0.064 C) by a simple model using the first law of thermodynamics and the time-integral (same as ‘running total’ if time steps are equal) of sunspot count.
There was no need to consider any change to the level of CO2 or any other greenhouse gas. Climate change is natural.
The model, with an eye-opening graph, is presented in the October 16 pdf at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true. (The integral of the PDO Index http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest indicates a substantial measure of sea surface temperatures, as does the time-integral of ENSO 3.4, but not all so replace all references to PDO with ESST for Effective Sea Surface Temperature).
This model predicted the ongoing temperature decline trend. None of the 20 or so models that the IPCC uses did.
Ditto @greenconservative, right on broham!
@Palmetto Conservative - yep, you are the king of idiots. Post again and prove my point…
Once again, nice comeback, Potsie. Whack!
…
Видел уже где то…
[...] Kevin Bryant | Global warming counter [...]