You have no theory! You have produced nothing to even allude to a theory! Where is ANYTHING that discusses your "theory"? No where! You haven't produced anything because all you have is your opinion, as evidenced by these endless posts presenting nothing but your opinion.
I doubt that you are or ever were a scientist from your posts and idea as to how the scientific process works. It is up to you to produce evidence for your "theory", not merely state nonsense.
jeffbliss, I understand that you don't get it. You have an upside down idea of science, where it is not the job of the person with a new theory to prove it right, but the reponsibility of everyone else to prove him wrong. I blame the accademy and the failure to maintain ideals in the face of the onslaught of political correctness. The sciences resisted for a while, but caved as new blood came into the faculties. Your's is a perfect world for junk science. You can even get rid of opponets by labeling them racist or anti-choice or ungreen heartless non-caring throwbacks. It is the Star Wars generation. Use the Force. There is consensus in the Force. Do what feels right but don't rely on reason. Reason, like language, is a white male tool for oppression. There is a consensus among Deconstructionists that this is true. In fact redefine "right" when needed. It is the world we live in now, of unpopular science rejected for political reasons. The Concerned Scientists, Engineers for social justice, Design News and all its green for green's sake the editors love so much. I'm too old to be a respected peer. I can't even speak the language correctly. I commit 'isms of one sort or another without knowing. I don't have the modern thoughtdog that guards against incorrect ideas. So, good luck with all that.
So, I see that you still have nothing to refute the current science and nothing to refute "The global warming myth". Enough of your opinions. Either you have something material to back up your opinion or you do not, and apparently you do not. I doubt that you had anything to do with science, at least at any level that required you to back up your opinion.
"The Global Cooling Myth" monograph is like reading Carl Sagan to learn astronomy. Then I'll watch Al Gore's movie for the hundredth time (If you teach physics and chemistry, every time you sub during your planning period for a bio teacher, they have the kids watch his movie. Just the bio teachers for some reason - the ones who never took calculus.) Stop kiddin around. Have you read "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky? You should recognize the technique of rewriting history.
I was in college when that article was written and I well remember the many stories and papers on the subject. There were plans put forth by NASA "scientists" and many accademics to prevent the coming catastrophe. Cover the ice of the poles with carbon soot, seed the atmosphere at 90,000 feet with great fleets of U2 type planes and on and on. What would it be like if they had gotten what they wanted?
Luckily, the government and accademic "scientists" of today are so much smarter and this time we ARE doing what they want. Part of it, and they want much more. I know it is going to be just peachy since this time they are really really right! How do I know? Because some of them claim there is a consensus. In the old days, when reason and thinking were popular in accademia, if you had proof you didn't need a consensus. Today we know better. By thinking correctly and not letting our minds wander into improper areas, we can vote instead of think. It is so much easier and sounds good on the news. The real clincher is the Commedy Central mock news politicos make fun of those who are called skeptics. And if you can make a joke about it, it MUST be true! Or False. Whichever way the joke goes. And one of the great features of Consensus Science is that you can weed out the problem people and outliers when selecting who can vote until you get that consensus you need. And you can feel good about it. You are saving the planet. I think they mean the Earth when they say that. A staggering notion. You, by sitting instead of jogging or running or even walking, or even better, dying, without having children, will cut your carbon footprint and save the planet!
If the true believers have their way, the generation being born today is going to despise you.
I am not a distinguished climate scientist, but those who know me will admit that I do have some understanding of science and technology, as well as a lot of experience differentiating fact from blown smoke.
Armchair basic physics would indicate that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere MIGHT cause the average temperature at the surface of the Earth to increase. When and by how much is up for grabs, however.
Following the research over the past 30 years (in both scientific literature and popular media) has indicated that results leading to the conclusion that we are headed for a climate catastrophe are inconclusive at best. In fact, the most likely conclusion is that the effect is miniscule, and drowned out by other drivers. The reports of imminent disaster smack of politically motivated pseudoscience.
Those who like to confuse correlation with causation should note that historically warm periods (e.g., the medieval warm period) correlate with good times for human society, and cool periods (e.g., the Little Ice Age) correlate with social disruption, famine and disease. So, if CO2 warms the planet, what makes you think it's a bad thing?
J. Williams, your last paragraph points out something that I have also pointed out, which is that the personal agenda of many of the fanatics seems to be based on something other than climate concern. Aren't some of these the same folks who were screaming about how guilty we were that we were living in comfort while others weren't, perhaps 15 0r 20 years back? Does anybody else recall that bunch of noise? And now they have something that at least has a scientific sound to it, correct or not.
Remarkable post Charles. As I am looking at the responses, i.e. comments, I see 46 screens with various viewpoints. In my opinion, this is one of the best things that could happen--we discuss the pros and cons of the argument. Personally, I feel the documentation supports global warming as a fact. My doubt is that we on earth are significantly contributing to that warming. Quite frankly, my mind is not made up and I'm still looking for the "smoking gun" that tells me we are the culprits. Great post Charles.
C'mon, Jeff. CO2 is heavier than air. That's why it's down here, and not up there. All the plants love it, and so I'm a big fan. You'll have to work harder to prove your theory, if you think you can.
Global warming is not proven by some incidental correlation with the modern generation of so-called greenhouse gasses. Do I need to say the words? Correlation is not causation. How do you explain the correlational melting of the ice caps on Mars? Little Green SUV's? That's just snarky, and I'm sorry.
Ok, I'm not a climate scientist. But I am old enough to remember the big Global Cooling Scare of the 1970's. Do we really think we are all so much smarter now? In my investigation I have found that the effects of CO2 holding in atmospheric heat are a log. Once you get near the top, the warming effects are barely perceptible even if you double the atmospheric gas. It flattens out due to physical or chemical response in the system and is actually counteracted then. The anthropogenic global warming elite seem to believe their science story is infallible. They probably also believe we can finally make Marxism work. Ok, that's another cheap shot. But that is the nature of colleagial debate at this level, right?
Let us not totally succumb to the conceits of our chauvinism. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.
Are they robots or androids? We're not exactly sure. Each talking, gesturing Geminoid looks exactly like a real individual, starting with their creator, professor Hiroshi Ishiguro of Osaka University in Japan.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.