The stimulus is working!

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

you have it backward, this is all about politics and has very little to do with science, is Al Gore a Politician of a Scientist?

I don't know why you continue to reference Al Gore. Aside from by you, he hasn't been referenced once in this post. And no, I didn't see the movie.

You, sir, are conflating the topic.

As a note, a PhD doesn't immediately make you the definitive source for reliable information.

[spence]

That's because ScottW has been blinded by the punditry. He doesn't understand the difference between science and politics so to him they are one in the same. All a fraud...

Classic ostrich head in the sand syndrome.

Wow, Bryan sure nailed this one.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

As a note, a PhD doesn't immediately make you the definitive source for reliable information.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You sure got me Dr. Science. I guess the fact that 2008 saw one of the warmest months on record and that the yearly averages look like this:



Seem to support your sceintific theory that the Earth is indeed entering a dramatic period of cooling contrary to increasing output of greenhouse gasses.

I'm guessing you either stopped your education at the 8th grade, or really didn't pay attention in high school statistics.


Only an idiot would measure climate change with a 10 year sample, or perhaps someone out to ignore science and make a political point.

RIROCKHOUND sure called that one.

-spence

Actually, there are many such graphs of varying and similar time periods that conflict with yours. And there are various "interpretations" of your and other graphs. There is an immense amount of information and chatter, pro and con Global Warming/Climate Change. You can pick and choose whatever suits your agenda, leaving out contradictions and make a solid appearing argument either way. Most of the studies actually contradict your position.

In geologic time, 120 years is also too short to prove anymore than what occured in that 120 years, wherein, by the way, man-made use of fossil fuels were not a problem for half the graph. Also, the beginning of the graph enters on a downstroke indicating a higher level of warming before MMGW. It also shows another drop and leveling of temps at the time when MMGW might reasonably begin to show some effect. Then a big 20 YEAR spike and then the beginning of the present temp drop into a predicted 30 year cooling. This graph has no significant indication of Man Made Global Warming.

Global temps peaked in 1998 and have been cooling each year since. The warming and cooling were predictable due to HUNDREDS OF YEARS of historical trends and observation of the impact of variations in solar activity on global temperature. Global temps are falling even though atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase. Antarctica had the most ice ever recorded at the end of 2008. When adding the April 2009 ice extent at both polls together, there was the same amount of polar ice as 30 years ago. According to NASA, the earth's oceans have been cooling since 2003 and may be entering a 30 year cooling period.

Here are excerpts from a few abstracts in peer reviewed studies and/or major scientific journal articles disputing Man-Made Gobal Warming (CAPS are mine):
(1) "Some researchers say the data make SOLAR VARIABILITY the LEADING HYPOTHESIS to explain the 1500 YEAR oscillation of climate seen since the last ice age, and that the sun could also add to the greenhouse warming of the next few years."
(2) "A review of the recent referred literature FAILS TO CONFIRM quantitatively that CO2 radiative forcing was the prime mover in the changes in temperature, ice sheet volume, and related climatic variables in the glacial and interglacial episodes of the past 650,000 years . . . atmospheric CO2 variations generally FOLLOW changes in temperature and other climatic variables rather than preceding them."
(3) "The authors indentify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the earth's clilmate: (1) solar radiation as a dominant external energy supplier to earth, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gasses to the world ocean and the atmosphere , and, possibly, (3) microbial activities generating and consuming atmospheric gases at the interface of lithosphere and atmosphere . . . the writers SHOW THAT HUMAN INDUCED CLIMATIC CHANGES ARE NEGLIGIBLE."
(4) "Several recent studies claim to have found evidence of large scale climate changes attributed to human influences. These assertions are based on increases of correlation over time between general circulation model prognostications and observations as derived from a centered pattern correlation statistic. We argue that the results of such studies ARE INAPPROPRIATE because of limitations and biases in these statistics which leads us to conclude that THE RESULTS OF MANY STUDIES EMPLOYING THESE STATISTICS MAY BE ERRONEOUS and, in fact, SHOW LITTLE EVIDENCE OF A HUMAN FINGERPRINT IN THE OBSERVED RECORDS."
(5) "The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, ESSENTIALLY DESCRIBES A FICTITIOUS MECHANISM, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump . . . according to the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS SUCH A PLANETARY MACHINE CAN NEVER EXIST. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology . . . it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real . . . in this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and . . . THE ATMOSPHERIC GREENHOUSE CONJECTURE IS FALSIFIED.

31,000 American scientists signed a petition against global warming.

According to the National Climate Data Center, 2008 temperatures in the U.S.A were below the 115 year average.

April 2009 temps were 0.8f below the 20th century average.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

[


Only an idiot would measure climate change with a 10 year sample, or perhaps someone out to ignore science and make a political point.

RIROCKHOUND sure called that one.

-spence

the problem with your statement and thinking Spence is that YOUR definition of "SCIENCE" is only that science that you agree with or that forwards your position/agenda, you completely ingore and impune a wealth of science and scientists that disagree with Manmade Global Warming Theory, a completely media and politically motivated and driven agenda...whose head is in the sand?

[buckman]

Al Gore and "climate change" makes Bush and oil look like nothing. He's the biggest fraud and scam artist since Madoff.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by detbuch

In geologic time, 120 years is also too short to prove anymore than what occured in that 120 years, wherein, by the way, man-made use of fossil fuels were not a problem for half the graph.

31,000 American scientists signed a petition against global warming.

I don't have time to go point by point right now.

1. Are you a geologist?
2. I hate this quote. a. How many of the 31,000 were/are have a background in climate, climatology, geology or some other science where this is THEIR field... b. how many WOULDN'T sign it!

[scottw]

that's just American scientists...but go ahead and find a way to dismiss them all....they're probably all idiots...right Spence and JD?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

Al Gore and "climate change" makes Bush and oil look like nothing. He's the biggest fraud and scam artist since Madoff.

Wait for it.....







Wait for it....





At least no wars were started by Gore over climate change.

I'm only kidding. I never really liked that argument.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Most of the studies actually contradict your position.

What's my position?

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

What's my position?

-spence

hands on the ankles?

sorry ..too easy, have a great weekend buddy, try to go fishing, OK?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

that's just American scientists...but go ahead and find a way to dismiss them all....they're probably all idiots...right Spence and JD?

Never said that. I said having a PhD doesn't make you a definitive source. Hell, there is a whole list of reputable scientists that either think Global Warming is not happening, is a natural occurrence, or could possibly benefit us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

Keep in mind, there was also a laundry list of scientists that argued man would never walk on the moon or develop a cure for cancer (we're pretty darn close).

However, people that use this as evidence against climate change *are* idiots. "It was 46 degrees outside last night in the middle of July. There's no way Global Warming exists."

[scottw]

RECORD COLD IN THE ERA OF GLOBAL WARMING

NEW ZEALAND

May the coldest on record, Niwa figures show
Matt Stewart | 10th July 2009

Wairarapa certainly played its part in the record-breaking chill that gripped the country during May, with Martinborough plunged into gloom courtesy of a paltry 92 hours of sunshine.

Niwa senior climate scientist Georgina Griffiths said May "broke records from one end of the country to the other - it was the coldest May on record", and there was nothing much to toast in the South Wairarapa wine village, which registered 69 percent of normal sunshine hours for May - the lowest figure for the town since records began.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Keep in mind, there was also a laundry list of scientists that argued man would never walk on the moon or develop a cure for cancer (we're pretty darn close).

However, people that use this as evidence against climate change *are* idiots. "It was 46 degrees outside last night in the middle of July. There's no way Global Warming exists."

name one...I would think that most scientist are optimists and WOULD believe that cures for cancer exist and that man COULD walk on the moon, where the hell do you get that, again, NAME ONE...another straw dog...you and Spence constantly declare those that disagree with you are non-thinking idiots...really not very nice if you ask me

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

name one...I would think that most scientist are optimists and WOULD believe that cures for cancer exist and that man COULD walk on the moon, where the hell do you get that, again, NAME ONE...another straw dog...you and Spence constantly declare those that disagree with you are non-thinking idiots...really not very nice if you ask me

For one, please cite some examples of me calling someone an idiot merely because they disagree with me.

Second, I was saying that people that say things like, "there can't be global warming, look how cold it has been this summer" are idiots.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

you and Spence constantly declare those that disagree with you are non-thinking idiots...really not very nice if you ask me

And again he resorts to placing words in people's mouths.

Never said such a thing, read my posts again.

-spence

[scottw]

so what you are saying is that you both referred to people that disagree with you as IDIOTS(which you both did) in this thread but neither of you ever called anyone an idiot for disagreeing with you....I think I'm starting to figure you two out.... and...Obama was clearly not checking out that little girls ass...but if he was, it's perfectly OK ....

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

so what you are saying is that you both referred to people that disagree with you as IDIOTS(which you both did) in this thread

One again, where exactly?

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

One again, where exactly?

I don't see it.

Unless ScottW agrees that his logic is idiotic and is feeling tremendously guilty for it.

-spence

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by scottw

RECORD COLD IN THE ERA OF GLOBAL WARMING NEW ZEALAND

THIS IS A MEDIA ARTICLE.

read the G-D Science, not the frigging new-press reworded garbage.
The scientists quoted would probably never say that it was 'Record cold in the middle of global warming' He would say that there is WEATHER and CLIMATE.

Pick up and read "The Long Thaw" by David Archer or "Our Threatened Oceans" by Stefan Rahmstorf... or "The Two Mile Time Machine" by Richard Alley... those are books written by scientists, NOT writers writing about science, but actual Scientists (novel idea, huh?). Go to realclimate.org and read actual scientists opinions and debates on relevant topics.

Archer is the Preeminent climate modeler in the world, and Rahmstorf is one of the leading experts on Sea level rise and physical oceanography. His work shows that the IPCC models from 10-20 years ago are actually pretty damn accurate based on satellite altimetery measurements of sea-level rise. Richard Alley is one of the big time-guys in everything ice core and big-picture climatology/glaciology. .


Read them as a skeptic, read them as a non-believer, whatever.
they will open your eyes. If these books at the very least don't open your eyes to the possibility that we have an impact to the future of our planet and natural resources, then your own predispositions are clouding your mind, Period.

Until 4 or 5 years ago, I was a skeptic when it came to human induced climate change... then I read the science... Do I believe that the world will end at 2deg C above present temperatures? Nope, but I do believe that it will have significant consequences to our way of life, agriculture, water resources and even fish/marine (read fish, lobsters etc..) life.

Let me ask this:
Increasing CO2 in the oceans as almost, absolutely been shown to have a deleterious effect on coral and other Carbonate marine organisms... the oceans are huge, how can we raise CO2 and cause this, we have no impact... oh right, the coral bleaching and weakened shells of certain mollusks and bivalves in recent decades is all a lie... or, the science is wrong, there are tons of fish, little old us can't have a big impact on overfishing...

I would believe most scientists are neither optimists or pessimists. the data shows what it shows, and while there is a certain amount of 'if I hadn't of believed it, I wouldn't have seen it' A GOOD scientist keeps his mind open to other explanations. They should not and usually do not have some ill-founded predisposition to a political ideology. Do some? of course, we are human.

And for the record, healthy debate is a good thing, going around in circles is not. All the issues you raised above, especially sunspots, were further study when that hypothesis had lots of backers, and found there is not a direct link to climate and sunspots, and while there is a 1500year cycle, it is strongest during the glacial stages, and hasn;t been overly prevalent in the last 6,000 years or so.

then again, what the %$%$%$%$ do I know, right.

Until people post the science, preferably from a peer reviewed journal, to go with their posts on climate change, I'm done. That is healthy debate. Posting random news clip is bull%$%$%$%$. I can probably find a newspaper or blog that blames it all on the world being flat and the center of the universe. Then again there are plenty that don't believe the earth is more than 7,000 years old...

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

then again, what the %$%$%$%$ do I know, right.

Yea, what do you know?

If I need an expert on shallow marine benthic geologic habitats I know I can call you.

But what does global warming have to do with the ocean floor? Nothing? I thought so

Perhaps a more important questions is, what does the microtidal coast look like in NEW ZEALAND? Or more importantly, what are New Zealanders wearing this time of year?

It should be warm so if they're wearing sweaters or polar fleece Global Warming must be a fraud. Then again, if they're wearing shirts it's possible there's a short term trend towards warmth so Global Warming must be a fraud.

-spence

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by spence

Yea, what do you know?
If I need an expert on shallow marine benthic geologic habitats I know I can call you.
-spence

What did you do, google me?

[scottw]

read your posts idiots...I highlighted yours if red Johnny, geeze

JD... "However, people that use this as evidence against climate change *are* idiots. "

SPENCE..."Only an idiot would measure climate change with a 10 year sample, or perhaps someone out to ignore science and make a political point."

Johnny you routinely roll with he "most people are ....(fill in the derrogatory slur)
and Spence's arrogant condecension is unmatched and remarkably boring...

with you two it's always the same thing, you make quite a couple


this was written for you two...

July 10, 2009
The Audacity of Conceit
By Victor Volsky

Intelligent idiots, smart fools, multi-degreed morons - lots of monikers could describe a category of individuals dismayingly prominent in the ruling elites of the West. They are the people so divorced from reality, so engrossed in bookish pursuits that - for all their undoubted intellectual accomplishments and often as a direct consequence thereof - they invariably end up with egg on their faces whenever they try to engage in practical activities.


Worse yet, they idolize each other, sticking up for one another out of class solidarity.

If the people who formulate the administration's economic policy are so smart, why is it so disastrous? Last January, these wizards of smart predicted that if Obama's stimulus package were passed, the unemployment rate would not go beyond 8 percent by the end of the year. At this point, it is nearing 10 percent and shows no sign of slowing down. How could they be so wrong with their vaunted brilliance?


It is a common mistake of intellectuals to confuse IQ with common sense and verbal fluency with leadership qualities. They are simply unable to comprehend that academic success does not necessarily translate into a firm grasp on reality; the knack for endlessly bloviating on an abstruse subject does not automatically imply administrative ability; an academic degree is not a substitute for practical experience; and a professors' lounge is not a corporate boardroom.


Nobody would deny that the members of Obama's circle of economic advisors are indeed academically adept, well-spoken men and women. But have any of them ever run a lemonade stand, much less a bona fide business? Have they ever met a payroll? Do they know what it means to toss and turn in bed, worrying over the coming rise in vendor prices? They may have academic theories and marshal vast amounts of data, but have little practical knowledge of how things work in the real world.


So what do they bring to the administration other than long resumes and fearsome reputations as intellectual polemicists? All these brilliant academics have been brought on board for the sole purpose of lending an intellectual veneer to Obama's political schemes and validate his power grab. Hence the pitiful sight of these noted intellectuals being trotted out to the microphones to bleat pathetically in defense of the administration's agenda.

Karl Marx memorably said that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Obama's economic policy, which amounts to an all-out assault on the U.S. economy, repeats history as a farce -- which would be hilarious, if we didn't have to live with the consequences.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

THIS IS A MEDIA ARTICLE.

read the G-D Science, not the frigging new-press reworded garbage.
The scientists quoted would probably never say that it was 'Record cold in the middle of global warming' He would say that there is WEATHER and CLIMATE.

Pick up and read "The Long Thaw" by David Archer or "Our Threatened Oceans" by Stefan Rahmstorf... or "The Two Mile Time Machine" by Richard Alley... those are books written by scientists, NOT writers writing about science, but actual Scientists (novel idea, huh?). Go to realclimate.org and read actual scientists opinions and debates on relevant topics.

Archer is the Preeminent climate modeler in the world, and Rahmstorf is one of the leading experts on Sea level rise and physical oceanography. His work shows that the IPCC models from 10-20 years ago are actually pretty damn accurate based on satellite altimetery measurements of sea-level rise. Richard Alley is one of the big time-guys in everything ice core and big-picture climatology/glaciology. .


Read them as a skeptic, read them as a non-believer, whatever.
they will open your eyes. If these books at the very least don't open your eyes to the possibility that we have an impact to the future of our planet and natural resources, then your own predispositions are clouding your mind, Period.

Until 4 or 5 years ago, I was a skeptic when it came to human induced climate change... then I read the science... Do I believe that the world will end at 2deg C above present temperatures? Nope, but I do believe that it will have significant consequences to our way of life, agriculture, water resources and even fish/marine (read fish, lobsters etc..) life.

Let me ask this:
Increasing CO2 in the oceans as almost, absolutely been shown to have a deleterious effect on coral and other Carbonate marine organisms... the oceans are huge, how can we raise CO2 and cause this, we have no impact... oh right, the coral bleaching and weakened shells of certain mollusks and bivalves in recent decades is all a lie... or, the science is wrong, there are tons of fish, little old us can't have a big impact on overfishing...

I would believe most scientists are neither optimists or pessimists. the data shows what it shows, and while there is a certain amount of 'if I hadn't of believed it, I wouldn't have seen it' A GOOD scientist keeps his mind open to other explanations. They should not and usually do not have some ill-founded predisposition to a political ideology. Do some? of course, we are human.

And for the record, healthy debate is a good thing, going around in circles is not. All the issues you raised above, especially sunspots, were further study when that hypothesis had lots of backers, and found there is not a direct link to climate and sunspots, and while there is a 1500year cycle, it is strongest during the glacial stages, and hasn;t been overly prevalent in the last 6,000 years or so.

then again, what the %$%$%$%$ do I know, right.

Until people post the science, preferably from a peer reviewed journal, to go with their posts on climate change, I'm done. That is healthy debate. Posting random news clip is bull%$%$%$%$. I can probably find a newspaper or blog that blames it all on the world being flat and the center of the universe. Then again there are plenty that don't believe the earth is more than 7,000 years old...

everyone you listed is on George Soros' payroll..

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

read your posts idiots...I highlighted yours if red Johnny, geeze

JD... "However, people that use this as evidence against climate change *are* idiots. "

SPENCE..."Only an idiot would measure climate change with a 10 year sample, or perhaps someone out to ignore science and make a political point."

Johnny you routinely roll with he "most people are ....(fill in the derrogatory slur)
and Spence's arrogant condecension is unmatched and remarkably boring...

You are delusional. And quite skilled at taking things out of context in a poor attempt to further your baseless points. You should go back to copy/pasting other people's ideas.

People who make a simple observation and use that as evidence for or against global warming (or climate change) are idiots. It's not a matter of if they agree with me or not.

Interestingly, I haven't once actually stated in this thread what my opinion on climate change is.

Originally Posted by scottw

this was written for you two...

July 10, 2009
The Audacity of Conceit
By Victor Volsky

Intelligent idiots, smart fools, multi-degreed morons - lots of monikers could describe a category of individuals dismayingly prominent in the ruling elites of the West. They are the people so divorced from reality, so engrossed in bookish pursuits that - for all their undoubted intellectual accomplishments and often as a direct consequence thereof - they invariably end up with egg on their faces whenever they try to engage in practical activities.

Yet you find it appropriate to cite "there are an awful lot of PHD idiots running around that dipute this data and 'SCIENCE'," as though having a PHD automatically makes someone an authority. If a PhD is a "muti-degreed moron" and "divorced from reality", what does that make someone like you who mindlessly follows what they say?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

July 10, 2009
The Audacity of Conceit
By Victor Volsky

Intelligent idiots, smart fools, multi-degreed morons - lots of monikers could describe a category of individuals dismayingly prominent in the ruling elites of the West. They are the people so divorced from reality, so engrossed in bookish pursuits that - for all their undoubted intellectual accomplishments and often as a direct consequence thereof - they invariably end up with egg on their faces whenever they try to engage in practical activities.

I like that.

Book learning is great, but unless tempered with experience and
wisdom it only offers a very small part of a person's intellect.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Yet you find it appropriate to cite "there are an awful lot of PHD idiots running around that dipute this data and 'SCIENCE'," as though having a PHD automatically makes someone an authority. If a PhD is a "muti-degreed moron" and "divorced from reality", what does that make someone like you who mindlessly follows what they say?

here's the SIDE that I'm on with regard to this JD, first...I'm NOT on the side that has determined that the "Science is Settled", the "DEBATE IS OVER" and anyone who disagrees is a "flat-earther", "holocaust denier" and is in the pocket of BIG OIL...this is the constant montra of the AGW supporters from AL GORE on down....there has been NO scientific debate for the last 10 years, the "other side" has been told to shut up and has been routinely impuned while the population had been pummeled with green propoganda....Al Gore has refused to debate(thought he was the magnificent debater?) anyone or answer questions from anyone beyond adoring suck up media....the Republicans were refused by the Dems to bring a witness to respond to Gore in the Cap/Trade hearings....is this how open and honest debate takes place in a democratic society? NO...this is how STALINISTS forward an agenda...I'm on the side that says...hold on...there's far more to this than what Gore and the left are trying to ramrod down our throats, you only need to look at the countries that rushed in to this lunacy to see the results....this is the mother of all trumped up left wing scare tactics created crisis used to frighten the masses and further seize power...but that's just my uneducated opinion so take it for what it's worth...noone told me to say that...

you are cranky again, now I know you didn't catch anything, head south one of these days and I'll take ya out fishing, we'll have fun....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I don't have time to go point by point right now.

1. Are you a geologist?
2. I hate this quote. a. How many of the 31,000 were/are have a background in climate, climatology, geology or some other science where this is THEIR field... b. how many WOULDN'T sign it!

hey Rock, this guy is a GEOLOGIST...

Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites

Geologist Ian Plimer takes a contrary view, arguing that man-made climate change is a con trick perpetuated by environmentalists

By Jonathan Manthorpe, Vancouver SunJuly 28, 2009

Ian Plimer has outraged the ayatollahs of purist environmentalism, the Torquemadas of the doctrine of global warming, and he seems to relish the damnation they heap on him.

Plimer is a geologist, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University, and he may well be Australia's best-known and most notorious academic.

Plimer, you see, is an unremitting critic of "anthropogenic global warming" -- man-made climate change to you and me -- and the current environmental orthodoxy that if we change our polluting ways, global warming can be reversed.

It is, of course, not new to have a highly qualified scientist saying that global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon with many precedents in history. Many have made the argument, too, that it is rubbish to contend human behaviour is causing the current climate change. And it has often been well argued that it is totally ridiculous to suppose that changes in human behaviour -- cleaning up our act through expensive slight-of-hand taxation tricks -- can reverse the trend.

But most of these scientific and academic voices have fallen silent in the face of environmental Jacobinism. Purging humankind of its supposed sins of environmental degradation has become a religion with a fanatical and often intolerant priesthood, especially among the First World urban elites.

But Plimer shows no sign of giving way to this orthodoxy and has just published the latest of his six books and 60 academic papers on the subject of global warming. This book, Heaven and Earth -- Global Warming: The Missing Science, draws together much of his previous work. It springs especially from A Short History of Plant Earth, which was based on a decade of radio broadcasts in Australia.

That book, published in 2001, was a best-seller and won several prizes. But Plimer found it hard to find anyone willing to publish this latest book, so intimidating has the environmental lobby become.

But he did eventually find a small publishing house willing to take the gamble and the book has already sold about 30,000 copies in Australia. It seems also to be doing well in Britain and the United States in the first days of publication.

Plimer presents the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is little more than a con trick on the public perpetrated by fundamentalist environmentalists and callously adopted by politicians and government officials who love nothing more than an issue that causes public anxiety.

While environmentalists for the most part draw their conclusions based on climate information gathered in the last few hundred years, geologists, Plimer says, have a time frame stretching back many thousands of millions of years.

The dynamic and changing character of the Earth's climate has always been known by geologists. These changes are cyclical and random, he says. They are not caused or significantly affected by human behaviour.

Polar ice, for example, has been present on the Earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time, Plimer writes. Plus, animal extinctions are an entirely normal part of the Earth's evolution.

(Plimer, by the way, is also a vehement anti-creationist and has been hauled into court for disrupting meetings by religious leaders and evangelists who claim the Bible is literal truth.)

Plimer gets especially upset about carbon dioxide, its role in Earth's daily life and the supposed effects on climate of human manufacture of the gas. He says atmospheric carbon dioxide is now at the lowest levels it has been for 500 million years, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide is only 0.001 per cent of the total amount of the chemical held in the oceans, surface rocks, soils and various life forms. Indeed, Plimer says carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a plant food. Plants eat carbon dioxide and excrete oxygen. Human activity, he says, contributes only the tiniest fraction to even the atmospheric presence of carbon dioxide.

There is no problem with global warming, Plimer says repeatedly. He points out that for humans periods of global warming have been times of abundance when civilization made leaps forward. Ice ages, in contrast, have been times when human development slowed or even declined.

So global warming, says Plimer, is something humans should welcome and embrace as a harbinger of good times to come.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

hey Rock, this guy is a GEOLOGIST...

One nitwit's opinion that you found on the web doesn't really prove anything.

He certainly has some screws loose with this gem:

(Plimer, by the way, is also a vehement anti-creationist and has been hauled into court for disrupting meetings by religious leaders and evangelists who claim the Bible is literal truth.)

It's one thing to publish opposing articles, it's another to disrupt meetings and whatnot. Right way and wrong way.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

One nitwit's opinion that you found on the web doesn't really prove anything.

Well, you certainly haven't really proved that he is a nitwit just by calling him one. What Scott's post did, among other things, is prove, by his credentials, that the author IS a geologist, of a high rank at that.