Up to the minute Amber Alert Information

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Carbon dioxide: Part 13

Here is an interview and article worth reading. I will tantalize you with just a couple of paragraphs.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth still warming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.
Read the whole article here. Contrary to Marohasy, it will take the politicians a long time to catch up with the scientists. By that time the world will be saddled with energy policies that the next generation will need to shake off.

From the Goracle to Rep. Kalin, as politicians, they need to do something, that is, create law to "help." It will take longer to change manufactured law than for a natural weather cycle to complete its course. Global warming/climate change politicians will make sure their legacies stay alive in law. For politicians, energy policies have little to do with climatology. Rather it is for control of the masses.


Glassel said...

“The debate has ended over whether global warming is a problem caused by human activity. Consequently, we can and must act now to solve the problem, or else we will bequeath a dangerous and diminished world to our children and grandchildren.” John McCain and Joe Lieberman.

Somehow, I tend to trust McCain's opinion more than those espoused by people who hide behind fictious and anonymous screen names.

Jonathan P. Glassel

Anonymous said...

To glassel:

I always love it when people conveniently use a blog as a "source" in order to build a straw man.

Read more closely sir. The source isn't the blog. The source is the DATA. (Those little blue, underlined words are links to "sources") From surface temperatures to deep ocean temperatures, the DATA shows that global warming has stopped or even reversed slightly.

When McCain and Lieberman, both of whom I respect, get degrees in climatology perhaps they will be a viable source. As it stands, they are no better qualified to comment than "people who hide behind fictious (sic) and anonymous screen names."

Ben Franklin himself used fictitious names often in print. I guess I'll have to entirely evaluate everything he stood for now that we know he was "hiding."


Anonymous said...

Actually glassel, you might want to rethink using your own name on the internet. The world is full of sick lunatics and, before you know it, one of them is smearing you by name on a web site as a "terrorist" or "child abuser."

That's what happened to me. I had to call the FBI to get it to stop.

Anonymity or the use of pseudonyms isn't a matter of courage or lack thereof. It is a simple matter of security on a global medium that attracts all kinds of freaks.

You would be well advised to do a better job of protecting your identity. Consider that a friendly tip.