Green House Model false, predictions
Global warming or not, pollution is bad
Global cooling/warming etc may not be correct, but pollution is real. Less pollution the better
Yes I drive a car - but I do feel guilty for driving short distances.
I switch off lights/tv/pc when not needed as much as I can, and try to buy energy efficient models of everything even if it's a bit more expensive.
Every little counts
I said less pollution, less doesn't mean nothing.
Hi, Dot! Are you still enjoying your large car? It''s big enough for all your needs--but it takes more fuel when you're riding alone without animals or cargo in fair weather, than a little tiny car would use. But, you're always safer than a tiny car would make you, if you ever have a big collision. I'm glad you have the freedom to choose what suits your life best.
Quaver, I do not mean to give you a hard time. I economize with respect to car fuel, furnace fuel, and electricity, too. It is useful for saving money, as well as any pollution it saves. But, I weigh the usefulness of using the electricity or fuel , as compared to going without. If I must mail a check to pay a bill on a certain day, the company will not accept my excuse if I say, "I could not walk to the post office before it closed, so I left it for another day." Sometimes, I just want the comfort of warmth, or the pleasant brightness of several lights on at the same time. I have even enjoyed the warmth of a fireplace in a previous home, or a campfire at church camp.
I see what you mean, I'm not extreme global warming activist either, and am not prepared to swich my car to a horse just yet
From the article referenced in Scholar's link
"Santer et al. (2005) recently investigated the altitude
dependence of temperature trends during the satellite era,
emphasizing the tropical zone, where the characteristics
are well-suited for model evaluation. They compared
available observations with 19 of the models and suggest
that any disparity between models and observations is due
to residual errors in the observational datasets.. In
this article, we consider the observational results in 22
of the models that were available. As did Santer et al.
(2005), we confine our study to the tropical zone – but
we reach a different conclusion."
So who's right? Why don't you believe the first group (Santer et al)? Why do you choose to believe the second group (Douglass et al)?
Basically you are posting links to papers with one view point, and ignoring any with an opposite view point. How many papers say global warming is occurring, how many say it is not?
And did you look at the graph here?
Surely pollution is not as bad these days...........especially in the UK.
Many years ago, there was high pollution with 'smog', with factories pumping out vast clouds of smoke etc..
The air is a darn sight cleaner now than it used to be.
Oh, and what has happened to the huge hole in the ozone layer that we were frightned with a while back.........that seems to have gone very quiet lately.
Then earlier in 2007 one of our beloved Cabinet Ministers was pointing out that we should be buying hardy plants because of the heatwave and drought we were going to experience during the summer........we had a couple of hot weeks early on, so the theory was that we were all going to fry last summer..............didn't quite turn out that way did it ?
Then recently part of the coast was evacuated because the sea levels had risen and the powers that be reckoned that massive waves were going to arrive and wipe the place out....not a lot happened.
Ah well, at least 'they' took a few precautions I suppose.
A few years ago we were warned that another 'ice age' was coming.........I do wish 'they' would make up their minds
The we had the mad cow disease and we were all going to die through eating burgers and beef.
The we were all going to die of bird flu.
'Aids' was rampant and we were all going to die from that......but I reckon that if you don't 'walk on the other side of the street' there is not too much to worry about.
It just seems to me that there are so many warnings spouted that a lot of us just don't really take any notice.............the boy who cried wolf comes to mind
re ozone layer
and from the last paragraph in section 111
Ah, sorted then
Prevention is always better, and often easier, than cure. If evidence shows that certain things will affect our environment and that there is something that we can do about it, why shouldn't we. It's much easier to shut the gate before the horse bolts, than catching it later.
You drive very old cars don't you scholar? They tend to be less friendly to the envrionment don't they?
How much walking do you do?
People who work have no choice other than to drive if there is no public transport that takes the route they need but many other journeys aren't necessary.
When I lived in the States I was amazed by the number of people who moved the car when moving between stores in the same shopping centre.
Being lectured by gaz guzzling Americans on pollution or global warming is akin to Casanova promoting chastity.
The point for most of us is fairly simple - whether or not the dire predictions about global warming are true, I don't remember ever seeing any
research proving that the increased level of carbon emissions are good for the environment.
We can choose to do things with our lifestyles that benefit others or we can sit back and say,"I'm alright, jack".
It's a point I've made before and will probably tiresomely make again- but the system - whatever system it is - will not get better on its own and assuming that everyone else should be doing something for it is the way to ruin.
I drive more than I should but I'm attempting to cut down. I take public transport whenever I can, and have changed other bits about my lifestyle. My car gets between 50 - 60 mpg.
Even as an American, I find it irritating that the US is so often the source for denials that there is any need to conserve energy, given the general statistics about energy use world wide.
Dr. John, I concentrated on the last 50 years because it has only been since 1958 that Keeling started continuously recording the concentration of
CO2, and the CO2-forcing necessary for the false anthropogenic global warming theories is the point of contention.
There was, indeed, a cooling period in the last century during which some extrapolated a coming ice age. And there has been a period during which submitted temperatures rose. And, there has been a period of six years in the last 50 during which the observed temperatures have remained the same.
Looking at the last 50 years, a period of six consecutive years without an increase is not a small period. The Keeling graph in John Coleman's article does not extend to these last few no-temp-increase years, but it surely would continue to go up, since the Chinese are continuing to build fuel-burning power plants as fast as they can to power their growing industrialization. They are burning fuel at an ever-increasing rate.
When you referenced the sun cycle in another post, you are acknowledging what the those who reject the GH models assert--the climate does get warmer or colder (or even stay the same) from year to year, but man burning fuel has no measurable effect. It has to do with the sun and other natural forces. (Volcanic activity and large meteor strikes could block enough sunlight to have an effect.)
To be absolutely thorough, I could add I am thinking only of the fuel-burning issue in saying man does not measurably influence the climate. I am not considering full-scale nuclear war.