Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (329952)	3/22/2007 6:44:00 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574762

THE COMING ASS AGE by Ann Coulter March 21, 2007 No matter how much liberals try to dress up their nutty superstitions about global warming as "science," which only six-fingered lunatics could doubt, scratch a global warming "scientist" and you get a religious fanatic. These days, new religions are barely up and running before they seize upon the worst aspects of the God-based religions. First, there's the hypocrisy and corruption. At the 1992 Democratic Convention in New York, Al Gore said: "The central organizing principle of governments everywhere must be the environment." The environment would not, however, be the central organizing principle of Gore's own life. The only place Al Gore conserves energy these days is on the treadmill. I don't want to suggest that Al's getting big, but the last time I saw him on TV I thought, "That reminds me — we have to do something about saving the polar bears." Never mind his carbon footprint — have you seen the size of Al Gore's regular footprint lately? It's almost as deep as Janet Reno's. But I digress. As has been widely reported, Gore's Tennessee mansion consumes 20 times the energy of the average home in that state. But it's OK, according to the priests of global warming. Gore has purchased "carbon offsets." It took the Catholic Church hundreds of years to develop corrupt practices such as papal indulgences. The global warming religion has barely been around for 20 years, and yet its devotees are allowed to pollute by the simple expedient of paying for papal indulgences called "carbon offsets." Americans spend an extra $2.2 billion on gas a year because they're overweight, requiring more fuel in cars to carry the extra pounds. So even with all those papal indulgences, Gore may have a small carbon footprint, but he has a huge carbon butt-print. Further proving that liberalism is a religion, its practitioners respond with the zeal of Torquemada to any dissent from the faith in global warming. A few years ago, Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg wrote a book titled "The Skeptical Environmentalist," disputing the hysteria surrounding global warming and other environmentalist scares. Lomborg is a Greenpeace anti-war protester — or, as he is described on liberal Web sites, he is a "young, gay vegetarian Dane with tight T-shirts." His book was cited favorably in The New York Times. But for questioning the "science" behind global warming, Lomborg was brought up on charges of "scientific misconduct" by Denmark's Inquisition Court, called the "Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation." I take it Denmark's Ministry of Truth was booked solid that day. The moment anyone diverges from official church doctrine on global warming, he is threatened with destruction. Heretics would be burnt at the stake if liberals could figure out how to do it in a "carbon neutral" way. Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball is featured in the new documentary debunking global warming, titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." For this heresy, Ball has received hate mail with such messages as, "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further global warming." I'm against political writers whining about their hate mail because it makes them sound like Paul Krugman. But that's political writers arguing about ideology. Global warming is supposed to be "science." It's hard to imagine Niels Bohr responding to Albert Einstein's letter questioning quantum mechanics with a statement like: "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further quantum mechanics." Come to think of it, one can't imagine the pope writing a letter to Jerry Falwell saying, "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further infallibility." If this is how global warming devotees defend their scientific theory, it may be a few tweaks short of a scientific theory. Scientific facts are not subject to liberal bullying — which, by the way, is precisely why liberals hate science. A few years ago, The New York Times ran an article about the continuing furious debates among physicists about quantum mechanics, which differs from global warming in the sense that it is supported by physical evidence and it doesn't make you feel good inside to "do something" about quantum mechanics. It is, in short, science. Though he helped develop the theory of quantum mechanics, Einstein immediately set to work attacking it. MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark called the constant testing and arguing about quantum mechanics "a 75-year war." That's how a real scientific theory operates. That's even how a real religion operates. Only a false religion needs hate mail, threats, courts of inquisition and Hollywood movies to sustain it.

To: combjelly who wrote (329952)	3/23/2007 3:34:06 AM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574762

"And it hasn't been proven that the CO2 would have gone up without human input." And I thought it was a well established fact that there was no industry when previous ice age was broken 20,000 years ago, and previous deglaciation happened about 140,000 years ago... and another about 250,000 years ago, and another before that... "True. But what makes you so sure that none of these estimates take that into account?" Because they never mention this, and because it is simply impossible using described techniques. The CO2 flux across air-sea interface depends on near-surface concentration. The surface concentration of CO2 depends on instant wind velocity. You need to grab simultaneously a probe of near-surface air, and the magnitude of wind gust. I don't recall any mentioning of individual wind velocities associated with individual air samples. "Equilibrium in the simplest of senses. While the various oceanic parameters(El Nino, La Nina, etc.) means that the oceans might be a net sink or a net source, it tends to average out over time" What kind of "simplest sense" it could possibly be if there is another established fact that the Earth climate went through wildest swings from rapid (5000 years) deglaciations to slow drifting into ice ages, and did it many many times? Clearly the equilibrium is far more complex than the thinking of People of Climatology allows it to be. Since the simplest equilibrium contradicts known facts, every model based on this assumption is likely wrong, and its predictions can be safely ignored.