| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Mindless Drewling Libruls" |
| Date: |
17 Dec 2004 05:37:26 AM |
| Object: |
the Junk Science known as "global warming" |
Coconuts in Wyoming?
Thursday, June 17, 2004
By Steven Milloy
It's almost summer in the northern hemisphere, and that can only mean one
thing - it's time for global-warming activists to sound the alarm.
Though temperatures obviously rise due to natural causes during the summer,
global-warming activists like to take advantage of this time to dramatize
their cause.
This year is no exception, as global-climate worry-warts gathered this week
in Washington, D.C., at a conference sponsored by the American Association
for the Advancement of Science to convulse about the Bush administration's
refusal to embrace the Kyoto global-warming treaty and clamp down on
emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
Speakers at the conference said they hoped to convince the U.S. public to
pressure politicians into policy changes.
"In this country, it depends a lot on what happens in the next election,"
geochemist Daniel Schrag of Harvard University told Reuters. "I don't think
we can expect to change the minds of this administration in the next couple
of months."
Schrag then went on to provide alarmist factoids about the build-up of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. He said the current concentration of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 380 parts per million - higher than it
has been for at least the past 430,000 years.
"In the next 100 years, unless immediate action is taken, carbon-dioxide
levels will rise to between 800 and 1,000 parts per million. The last time
carbon dioxide was that high was during the Eocene, 55 to 36 million years
ago," Schrag told Reuters.
At that time, he said, "palm trees lived in Wyoming, crocodiles lived in the
Arctic, Antarctica was a pine forest and sea level was at least 300 feet
higher than today."
But is atmospheric carbon dioxide all that really separates us from coconuts
in Laramie and Inuit crocodile wrestling?
Hardly. About 95 percent of the greenhouse effect - the atmospheric warming
due to the trapping of solar energy that makes life possible on Earth - is
due to water vapor, 99.999 percent of which is of natural origin.
The other 5 percent of the greenhouse effect is due to carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide and other miscellaneous gases.
Although carbon dioxide is the most dominant of these gases by volume,
comprising about 99.4 percent, the other gases trap more heat. So the
contribution of carbon dioxide to the 5 percent of the greenhouse effect not
due to water vapor is much less than 99.4 percent - it's about 72 percent.
Carbon dioxide, therefore, is responsible for roughly 3.6 percent of the
greenhouse effect (5 percent, representing the percentage of the greenhouse
effect not due to water vapor, multiplied by 72 percent, representing the
percentage of that 5 percent due to carbon dioxide).
But carbon dioxide is produced both naturally and by humans. About 97
percent of atmospheric carbon dioxide is natural, in fact. Only about 3
percent is from human activity.
That means that only about 0.11 percent of the greenhouse effect (that is, 3
percent of 3.6 percent) is due to human releases of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere.
Put another way, about 99.89 percent of the greenhouse effect has nothing to
do with carbon-dioxide emissions from human activity.
Factoring in the other greenhouse gases, the total human contribution to the
greenhouse effect is about 0.3 percent. In other words, about 99.7 percent
of the greenhouse effect is due entirely to nature.
When you consider that the greenhouse effect contributes about 60 degrees
Fahrenheit to the Earth's average temperature (which would be about zero
degrees Fahrenheit without the greenhouse effect), it doesn't really seem
like atmospheric carbon dioxide levels - even if they triple or quadruple
because of human activities - are all that important to global climate.
If the carbon dioxide-emissions reductions called for by the Kyoto global
warming treaty were implemented, human greenhouse contributions would be
reduced by about 0.03 percent. Atmospheric physicist Fred Singer says this
would have an "imperceptible effect on future temperatures - one-twentieth
of a degree by 2050."
As the Kyoto protocol would require cutting energy use by about 30 percent
by 2010 - necessarily causing inestimable negative economic consequences -
it's easy to see why U.S. politicians can't run away from the Kyoto protocol
fast enough.
It seems we don't need to worry about coconuts in Wyoming so much as the
nutty global warmers who meet every summer in Washington, D.C
Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the
Cato Institute and the author of Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense Against
Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123013,00.html
.
|
|
| User: "Ken Cornelius" |
|
| Title: Re: the Junk Science known as "global warming" |
17 Dec 2004 11:00:25 AM |
|
|
"Mindless Drewling Libruls" <LibFools@WhackjobDemmieLeft.com> wrote in
message news:Wxzwd.1724$RH4.681@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Coconuts in Wyoming?
Thursday, June 17, 2004
By Steven Milloy
Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at
the Cato Institute and the author of Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense
Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123013,00.html
Here's something off Google:
A "libertarian" quasi-academic think-tank which acts as a mouthpiece for the
globalism, corporatism, and neoliberalism of its corporate and conservative
funders. Cato is an astroturf organization: there is no significant
participation by the tiny libertarian minority. They do not fund it or
affect its goals. It is a creature of corporations and foundations.
The major purpose of the Cato Institute is to provide propaganda and
soundbites for conservative and libertarian politicians and journalists that
is conveniently free of reference to funders such as tobacco, fossil fuel,
investment, media, medical, and other regulated industries. [end quote]
That's about all that need be said about little Stevey Milloy, I think.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: the Junk Science known as "global warming" |
18 Dec 2004 04:17:39 AM |
|
|
Something from Fox news is suspect as propaganda for the oil industry.
It'd be different if the stuff was peer reviewed by impartial
scientists, but it isn't.
Your 'coconuts in Wyoming' is a straw man argument.
Take a look at real science; our corn belt has moved 200 miles north in
the last 20 years, for example.
Any anyway, you're obscuring the real policy question; specifically, we
should start moving away from gulping down all the oil we can get our
hands on.
Should we really be sending our young men and women to die in a meat
grinder for oil, when we can use other fuels? Certainly not.
Happily, market forces are pulling us away from oil:
1. Smaller cars and sedans are the rage now. Just talk to any dealer.
2. Just try and buy a hybrid car! Ha Ha, you'll see the demand instantly.
3. Wind/electric farms are starting to become economical, and are being
put in place.
4. Other inovations, such as a solar powered Sterling Engine (30%
efficient) are being developed.
Mindless Drewling Libruls wrote:
Coconuts in Wyoming?
Thursday, June 17, 2004
By Steven Milloy
It's almost summer in the northern hemisphere, and that can only mean one
thing - it's time for global-warming activists to sound the alarm.
Though temperatures obviously rise due to natural causes during the summer,
global-warming activists like to take advantage of this time to dramatize
their cause.
This year is no exception, as global-climate worry-warts gathered this week
in Washington, D.C., at a conference sponsored by the American Association
for the Advancement of Science to convulse about the Bush administration's
refusal to embrace the Kyoto global-warming treaty and clamp down on
emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
Speakers at the conference said they hoped to convince the U.S. public to
pressure politicians into policy changes.
"In this country, it depends a lot on what happens in the next election,"
geochemist Daniel Schrag of Harvard University told Reuters. "I don't think
we can expect to change the minds of this administration in the next couple
of months."
Schrag then went on to provide alarmist factoids about the build-up of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. He said the current concentration of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 380 parts per million - higher than it
has been for at least the past 430,000 years.
"In the next 100 years, unless immediate action is taken, carbon-dioxide
levels will rise to between 800 and 1,000 parts per million. The last time
carbon dioxide was that high was during the Eocene, 55 to 36 million years
ago," Schrag told Reuters.
At that time, he said, "palm trees lived in Wyoming, crocodiles lived in the
Arctic, Antarctica was a pine forest and sea level was at least 300 feet
higher than today."
But is atmospheric carbon dioxide all that really separates us from coconuts
in Laramie and Inuit crocodile wrestling?
Hardly. About 95 percent of the greenhouse effect - the atmospheric warming
due to the trapping of solar energy that makes life possible on Earth - is
due to water vapor, 99.999 percent of which is of natural origin.
The other 5 percent of the greenhouse effect is due to carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide and other miscellaneous gases.
Although carbon dioxide is the most dominant of these gases by volume,
comprising about 99.4 percent, the other gases trap more heat. So the
contribution of carbon dioxide to the 5 percent of the greenhouse effect not
due to water vapor is much less than 99.4 percent - it's about 72 percent.
Carbon dioxide, therefore, is responsible for roughly 3.6 percent of the
greenhouse effect (5 percent, representing the percentage of the greenhouse
effect not due to water vapor, multiplied by 72 percent, representing the
percentage of that 5 percent due to carbon dioxide).
But carbon dioxide is produced both naturally and by humans. About 97
percent of atmospheric carbon dioxide is natural, in fact. Only about 3
percent is from human activity.
That means that only about 0.11 percent of the greenhouse effect (that is, 3
percent of 3.6 percent) is due to human releases of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere.
Put another way, about 99.89 percent of the greenhouse effect has nothing to
do with carbon-dioxide emissions from human activity.
Factoring in the other greenhouse gases, the total human contribution to the
greenhouse effect is about 0.3 percent. In other words, about 99.7 percent
of the greenhouse effect is due entirely to nature.
When you consider that the greenhouse effect contributes about 60 degrees
Fahrenheit to the Earth's average temperature (which would be about zero
degrees Fahrenheit without the greenhouse effect), it doesn't really seem
like atmospheric carbon dioxide levels - even if they triple or quadruple
because of human activities - are all that important to global climate.
If the carbon dioxide-emissions reductions called for by the Kyoto global
warming treaty were implemented, human greenhouse contributions would be
reduced by about 0.03 percent. Atmospheric physicist Fred Singer says this
would have an "imperceptible effect on future temperatures - one-twentieth
of a degree by 2050."
As the Kyoto protocol would require cutting energy use by about 30 percent
by 2010 - necessarily causing inestimable negative economic consequences -
it's easy to see why U.S. politicians can't run away from the Kyoto protocol
fast enough.
It seems we don't need to worry about coconuts in Wyoming so much as the
nutty global warmers who meet every summer in Washington, D.C
Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the
Cato Institute and the author of Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense Against
Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123013,00.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindless Drewling Libruls" |
|
| Title: Re: the Junk Science known as "global warming" |
18 Dec 2004 06:10:10 AM |
|
|
"PagCal" <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote in message
news:gumdnZZhBJI5nlncRVn-2Q@giganews.com...
Something from Fox news is suspect as propaganda for the oil industry.
No, but that's one of the whines that we keep hearing from the
increasingly-desperate Leftists (neofascists, actually, since they are
attempting to stifle any dissent of the Leftist agenda) in this newsgroup.
They know they can't ever refute the facts in the FOXNews articles, so they
attempt to smear FOX itself with baseless allegations similar to the one you
just made.
Mindless Drewling Libruls wrote:
Coconuts in Wyoming?
Thursday, June 17, 2004
By Steven Milloy
It's almost summer in the northern hemisphere, and that can only mean one
thing - it's time for global-warming activists to sound the alarm.
Though temperatures obviously rise due to natural causes during the
summer, global-warming activists like to take advantage of this time to
dramatize their cause.
This year is no exception, as global-climate worry-warts gathered this
week in Washington, D.C., at a conference sponsored by the American
Association for the Advancement of Science to convulse about the Bush
administration's refusal to embrace the Kyoto global-warming treaty and
clamp down on emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
Speakers at the conference said they hoped to convince the U.S. public to
pressure politicians into policy changes.
"In this country, it depends a lot on what happens in the next election,"
geochemist Daniel Schrag of Harvard University told Reuters. "I don't
think we can expect to change the minds of this administration in the
next couple of months."
Schrag then went on to provide alarmist factoids about the build-up of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. He said the current concentration of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 380 parts per million - higher than
it has been for at least the past 430,000 years.
"In the next 100 years, unless immediate action is taken, carbon-dioxide
levels will rise to between 800 and 1,000 parts per million. The last
time carbon dioxide was that high was during the Eocene, 55 to 36 million
years ago," Schrag told Reuters.
At that time, he said, "palm trees lived in Wyoming, crocodiles lived in
the Arctic, Antarctica was a pine forest and sea level was at least 300
feet higher than today."
But is atmospheric carbon dioxide all that really separates us from
coconuts in Laramie and Inuit crocodile wrestling?
Hardly. About 95 percent of the greenhouse effect - the atmospheric
warming due to the trapping of solar energy that makes life possible on
Earth - is due to water vapor, 99.999 percent of which is of natural
origin.
The other 5 percent of the greenhouse effect is due to carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide and other miscellaneous gases.
Although carbon dioxide is the most dominant of these gases by volume,
comprising about 99.4 percent, the other gases trap more heat. So the
contribution of carbon dioxide to the 5 percent of the greenhouse effect
not due to water vapor is much less than 99.4 percent - it's about 72
percent.
Carbon dioxide, therefore, is responsible for roughly 3.6 percent of the
greenhouse effect (5 percent, representing the percentage of the
greenhouse effect not due to water vapor, multiplied by 72 percent,
representing the percentage of that 5 percent due to carbon dioxide).
But carbon dioxide is produced both naturally and by humans. About 97
percent of atmospheric carbon dioxide is natural, in fact. Only about 3
percent is from human activity.
That means that only about 0.11 percent of the greenhouse effect (that
is, 3 percent of 3.6 percent) is due to human releases of carbon dioxide
into the atmosphere.
Put another way, about 99.89 percent of the greenhouse effect has nothing
to do with carbon-dioxide emissions from human activity.
Factoring in the other greenhouse gases, the total human contribution to
the greenhouse effect is about 0.3 percent. In other words, about 99.7
percent of the greenhouse effect is due entirely to nature.
When you consider that the greenhouse effect contributes about 60 degrees
Fahrenheit to the Earth's average temperature (which would be about zero
degrees Fahrenheit without the greenhouse effect), it doesn't really seem
like atmospheric carbon dioxide levels - even if they triple or quadruple
because of human activities - are all that important to global climate.
If the carbon dioxide-emissions reductions called for by the Kyoto global
warming treaty were implemented, human greenhouse contributions would be
reduced by about 0.03 percent. Atmospheric physicist Fred Singer says
this would have an "imperceptible effect on future temperatures -
one-twentieth of a degree by 2050."
As the Kyoto protocol would require cutting energy use by about 30
percent by 2010 - necessarily causing inestimable negative economic
consequences - it's easy to see why U.S. politicians can't run away from
the Kyoto protocol fast enough.
It seems we don't need to worry about coconuts in Wyoming so much as the
nutty global warmers who meet every summer in Washington, D.C
Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at
the Cato Institute and the author of Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense
Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123013,00.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: the Junk Science known as "global warming" |
19 Dec 2004 03:13:39 AM |
|
|
Mindless Drewling Libruls wrote:
"PagCal" <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote in message
news:gumdnZZhBJI5nlncRVn-2Q@giganews.com...
Something from Fox news is suspect as propaganda for the oil industry.
No, but that's one of the whines that we keep hearing from the
increasingly-desperate Leftists (neofascists, actually, since they are
attempting to stifle any dissent of the Leftist agenda) in this newsgroup.
They know they can't ever refute the facts in the FOXNews articles, so they
attempt to smear FOX itself with baseless allegations similar to the one you
just made.
What leftist agenda are you talking about?
Let me give you an example; hybrid cars - both lefts and rights, red and
blue states buy the things. Why? They save you money AND they have
better performance than just gas cars as both gas and electric engines
help them excelerate.
When the government tried to push CAFE milage standards up a bit, then
stuges such as you started singing in the choris that the government was
trying to take away our 'right' to own an SUV and that it was some sort
of left-wing conspiracy/agenda.
How does it feel to be manipulated by big oil and auto that way?
Guess what? Detroit caught on to the consumer demand for hybrids anyway,
and guess what? There's about a year wait for them. They can't get them
off the assembly line fast enough.
Mindless Drewling Libruls wrote:
Coconuts in Wyoming?
Thursday, June 17, 2004
By Steven Milloy
It's almost summer in the northern hemisphere, and that can only mean one
thing - it's time for global-warming activists to sound the alarm.
Though temperatures obviously rise due to natural causes during the
summer, global-warming activists like to take advantage of this time to
dramatize their cause.
This year is no exception, as global-climate worry-warts gathered this
week in Washington, D.C., at a conference sponsored by the American
Association for the Advancement of Science to convulse about the Bush
administration's refusal to embrace the Kyoto global-warming treaty and
clamp down on emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
Speakers at the conference said they hoped to convince the U.S. public to
pressure politicians into policy changes.
"In this country, it depends a lot on what happens in the next election,"
geochemist Daniel Schrag of Harvard University told Reuters. "I don't
think we can expect to change the minds of this administration in the
next couple of months."
Schrag then went on to provide alarmist factoids about the build-up of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. He said the current concentration of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 380 parts per million - higher than
it has been for at least the past 430,000 years.
"In the next 100 years, unless immediate action is taken, carbon-dioxide
levels will rise to between 800 and 1,000 parts per million. The last
time carbon dioxide was that high was during the Eocene, 55 to 36 million
years ago," Schrag told Reuters.
At that time, he said, "palm trees lived in Wyoming, crocodiles lived in
the Arctic, Antarctica was a pine forest and sea level was at least 300
feet higher than today."
But is atmospheric carbon dioxide all that really separates us from
coconuts in Laramie and Inuit crocodile wrestling?
Hardly. About 95 percent of the greenhouse effect - the atmospheric
warming due to the trapping of solar energy that makes life possible on
Earth - is due to water vapor, 99.999 percent of which is of natural
origin.
The other 5 percent of the greenhouse effect is due to carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide and other miscellaneous gases.
Although carbon dioxide is the most dominant of these gases by volume,
comprising about 99.4 percent, the other gases trap more heat. So the
contribution of carbon dioxide to the 5 percent of the greenhouse effect
not due to water vapor is much less than 99.4 percent - it's about 72
percent.
Carbon dioxide, therefore, is responsible for roughly 3.6 percent of the
greenhouse effect (5 percent, representing the percentage of the
greenhouse effect not due to water vapor, multiplied by 72 percent,
representing the percentage of that 5 percent due to carbon dioxide).
But carbon dioxide is produced both naturally and by humans. About 97
percent of atmospheric carbon dioxide is natural, in fact. Only about 3
percent is from human activity.
That means that only about 0.11 percent of the greenhouse effect (that
is, 3 percent of 3.6 percent) is due to human releases of carbon dioxide
into the atmosphere.
Put another way, about 99.89 percent of the greenhouse effect has nothing
to do with carbon-dioxide emissions from human activity.
Factoring in the other greenhouse gases, the total human contribution to
the greenhouse effect is about 0.3 percent. In other words, about 99.7
percent of the greenhouse effect is due entirely to nature.
When you consider that the greenhouse effect contributes about 60 degrees
Fahrenheit to the Earth's average temperature (which would be about zero
degrees Fahrenheit without the greenhouse effect), it doesn't really seem
like atmospheric carbon dioxide levels - even if they triple or quadruple
because of human activities - are all that important to global climate.
If the carbon dioxide-emissions reductions called for by the Kyoto global
warming treaty were implemented, human greenhouse contributions would be
reduced by about 0.03 percent. Atmospheric physicist Fred Singer says
this would have an "imperceptible effect on future temperatures -
one-twentieth of a degree by 2050."
As the Kyoto protocol would require cutting energy use by about 30
percent by 2010 - necessarily causing inestimable negative economic
consequences - it's easy to see why U.S. politicians can't run away from
the Kyoto protocol fast enough.
It seems we don't need to worry about coconuts in Wyoming so much as the
nutty global warmers who meet every summer in Washington, D.C
Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at
the Cato Institute and the author of Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense
Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123013,00.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
