"We don't deny that carbon emissions may play a role, but we don't believe that the case is sufficiently proven to justify a revolution in global energy use." -WSJ
No one protecting their cheese here, right? What would anyone expect them to say? Just what they said? Must be true then.
Please ignore the man behind the curtain. He's a kindly old gentleman who only has our best interests at heart. No, really. Our best interests, it's true, trust me.
First, Blue, scroll down and read the other links on this subject. Second, next month a book will be published in the UK about experiments performed last year at the Danish National Space Center that provide at least preliminary confirmation of a theory advanced by geochemist Ján Veizer of Ruhr University and Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist at the Racah Institute of Physics in the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, that the principal cause of cloud formation (as much as 75 percent) is cosmic rays. The warming on Mars and Saturn, by the way, cannot be attributed to terrestrial greenhouse gases. Even articles in the WSJ deserve to be judged by the data, not presumptions of self-interest.
I'm sorry, Frank, I'm not bright enough to deal with dueling scientists in the employ of the princes. I have my eyes that tell me something's wrong. I have my view from a mountain of the city not nearly as visible as it was just 20 years ago. My anecdotes of weird weather, seemingly everywhere, and a shaken faith in princes and their journals.
I apologize for sneering.
-blue
** *
"The headline here should be? WSJ admits carbon emissions contribute to warming. So what?"
"No, no, that's not right. It's a sincere effort to calm the liberal fear-mongers with REAL science."
"What's the matter with those libs, don't they know real fear-mongering should be done with war?"
Right here in Philly, just a few weeks ago, everybody was going on about the cherry trees along the Schuylkill that were flowering because of the warm weather: more proof of global warming. They would have done better to look at the native species, none of which were taken in by the warm weather. If I cite a particularly cold spell as an indication that maybe the global warming theory is overstated, I will be told - correctly - that weather and climate are not the same thing. But every time some weather comes along that can be used to propagandize for the global warming theory, the papers and airwaves are filled with it (in more ways than one.) In my neck of the woods, the air used to be vastly more polluted than it is now and you couldn't get near the Schuylkill because of the stench of dead fish. The primary source of terrestrial heat remains the sun and it has been more active in recent decades. The planet has been much warmer in the past than it is now. The five-day weather forecast is of dubious reliability. The 100-year one is a joke. Up until the past few days we have had a warm winter here, meaning poor people don't have cold houses, less fuel has been burned, and it's been pretty pleasant all round. Cause for joy? Of course not. Noooo, we have to get ready for apocalypse. Geez.
"We don't deny that carbon emissions may play a role, but we don't believe that the case is sufficiently proven to justify a revolution in global energy use."
ReplyDelete-WSJ
No one protecting their cheese here, right? What would anyone expect them to say? Just what they said? Must be true then.
Please ignore the man behind the curtain. He's a kindly old gentleman who only has our best interests at heart. No, really. Our best interests, it's true, trust me.
-blue
[yawn]
First, Blue, scroll down and read the other links on this subject. Second, next month a book will be published in the UK about experiments performed last year at the Danish National Space Center that provide at least preliminary confirmation of a theory advanced by geochemist Ján Veizer of Ruhr University and Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist at the Racah Institute of Physics in the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, that the principal cause of cloud formation (as much as 75 percent) is cosmic rays. The warming on Mars and Saturn, by the way, cannot be attributed to terrestrial greenhouse gases. Even articles in the WSJ deserve to be judged by the data, not presumptions of self-interest.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, Frank, I'm not bright enough to deal with dueling scientists in the employ of the princes. I have my eyes that tell me something's wrong. I have my view from a mountain of the city not nearly as visible as it was just 20 years ago. My anecdotes of weird weather, seemingly everywhere, and a shaken faith in princes and their journals.
ReplyDeleteI apologize for sneering.
-blue
**
*
"The headline here should be? WSJ admits carbon emissions contribute to warming. So what?"
"No, no, that's not right. It's a sincere effort to calm the liberal fear-mongers with REAL science."
"What's the matter with those libs, don't they know real fear-mongering should be done with war?"
"Will you guys shut up! We're guests here."
Right here in Philly, just a few weeks ago, everybody was going on about the cherry trees along the Schuylkill that were flowering because of the warm weather: more proof of global warming. They would have done better to look at the native species, none of which were taken in by the warm weather. If I cite a particularly cold spell as an indication that maybe the global warming theory is overstated, I will be told - correctly - that weather and climate are not the same thing. But every time some weather comes along that can be used to propagandize for the global warming theory, the papers and airwaves are filled with it (in more ways than one.) In my neck of the woods, the air used to be vastly more polluted than it is now and you couldn't get near the Schuylkill because of the stench of dead fish. The primary source of terrestrial heat remains the sun and it has been more active in recent decades. The planet has been much warmer in the past than it is now. The five-day weather forecast is of dubious reliability. The 100-year one is a joke. Up until the past few days we have had a warm winter here, meaning poor people don't have cold houses, less fuel has been burned, and it's been pretty pleasant all round. Cause for joy? Of course not. Noooo, we have to get ready for apocalypse. Geez.
ReplyDelete