Has anybody here seen Lord Christopher Monckton's debunking of IPCC's science on climate change? I found it very interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
I also didn't have 90 minutes to watch my monitor.
If you bothered to watch all the way through, (worth it for the wizecracks alone), you would find out that he was presenting actual measurements on the planet to test this. These were recently released by your own government agencies.Indeed, before that happens, we will directly see the effects of CO2 buildup
I have to say that I was really turned off by the wisecracks. I listened to the first 15 minutes and scanned the entire presentation. The ridicule should be unnecessary if the facts speak for themselves. It made me question the motivations of the speaker. It strikes me as a political counterattack disguised as an effort to present factual data. It makes no difference whether this is true or not. Once I don't trust the speaker's motivations, I see no reason to hear more. A skillful liar will use 99 % of the truth, and decieve you with the hidden 1 %. For this reason, in complicated situations, I usually go to the scientific literature directly and rely on my own reasoning to get an answer I can trust.If you bothered to watch all the way through, (worth it for the wizecracks alone), you would find out that he was presenting actual measurements on the planet to test this. These were recently released by your own government agencies.
Do you not generally work to ANSI standards and is that organisation respected worldwide as is NOAA, Scrips Hole Institute, John Hopkins Medical Centre etc etc?do you really think I trust the data released by my government agencies? No way! I ignore it completely.
Of course, any statement like that is overly sweeping, but it's not too far from the truth for me in general. I don't have many issues with standards, because, whether or not I agree with them, there are times when they must be followed. It's the same thing with laws. I follow them even when they bother me in principle. But these don't relate to questions of truth. - They are just rules. Still, it's known that laws and standards are often enacted for political or financial gains, and any scientific data that is used to justify rules, should be questioned and verified.Do you not generally work to ANSI standards and is that organisation respected worldwide as is NOAA, Scrips Hole Institute, John Hopkins Medical Centre etc etc?
I think your statement rather sweeping Sir.
I agree with that completely. Most things are so good here, but ignorance, stupidity and corruption exist everywhere. My statement is not an attack on my country, but on my species.Whilst there is much to condemn in the American way there is also much to admire.
That's my point, that humans couldn't have possibly affected climate change; and I don't think that CO2 build-up is contributing to the climate change. Besides, humans couldn't really prevent a climate change at the moment.Taking a longer view, the last set of ice ages and the subsequent thaws did not happen because of human activity. We might not have a firm handle on climatic change as yet.
That number sounds a little too high. Does the problem include water vapor as a greenhouse gas? Based on your wording, it should. Basic physics considering absorption spectra and gas concentrations put the effect of CO2 well below that of water vapor, and CO2 is ranked second and estimated to contribute between 10% and 30 % of the greenhouse effect.From a problem in my book:
CO2 in the atmosphere prevents heat from escaping, and is responsible for roughly half of the greenhouse effect, the putative origin of global warming.
Is this wrong?
Without greenhouse gases, it would be snowball Earth. We are just outside the so-called habitable zone for the solar system.Did You Know?
If it were not for naturally occurring greenhouse gases, the Earth would be too cold to support life as we know it. Without the greenhouse effect, the average temperature of the Earth would be about -2°F rather than the 57°F we currently experience.
Sounds wrong to me. See if, thru your reading, you can understand how they arrived at that.From a problem in my book:
CO2 in the atmosphere prevents heat from escaping, and is responsible for roughly half of the greenhouse effect, the putative origin of global warming.
Is this wrong?
by Jake Hertz
by Jake Hertz
by Duane Benson
by Jake Hertz