Oooh policy advisor to Thatcher ey? What a ringing endorsement of this mans grasp of economics/politics/real life/meteorology/Science...

To be pedantic:
1) Turning the deserts into fertile lands wouldn't cure hunger in the long term. Famines are caused by changes in the amount of food production. Although this is addressed later, with the idea of perfect meteorological systems.
2) A geologically inactive planet would be a crappy place after million of years. Erosion would wear down all of the mountains. Ecological diversity would disappear. Nutrients would become increasingly scarce. For example, Australia, the oldest, flattest, and least geologically active continent, has some of the worst soils in the world (although it does still have some fertile regions). See http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/LivingWith/PlusSide/fertile_soils.html

And if the geological activity completely stops, meaning the Earth's core stagnates, then our magnetic field goes away, then our atmosphere is scoured by the solar wind and we are bombarded with cosmic rays and Earth become more like Mars.

So really we should be hugely grateful that we're on this geologically active planet.

This one I got by googling "best joke":
Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson go on a camping trip. After a good dinner and a bottle of wine, they retire for the night, and go to sleep.

Some hours later, Holmes wakes up and nudges his faithful friend. “Watson, look up at the sky and tell me what you see.”

“I see millions and millions of stars, Holmes” replies Watson.

“And what do you deduce from that?”

Watson ponders for a minute. “Well,

Astronomically, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets.

Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo.

Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three.

Meteorologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow.

Theologically, I can see that God is all powerful, and that we are a small and insignificant part of the universe.


But what does it tell you, Holmes?”

Holmes is silent for a moment.

“Watson, you idiot!” he says. “Someone has stolen our tent!”

NOTE:
This guy has no meteorological knowledge and doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about.

A. Chaf is a localized defense against missiles, and doesn't cover areas any larger than a small block.
B. Chemtrails are pure imaginary bullshit. Perpetuated by the stupid who are convinced by old-ass declassified material which reports of some idiot in the government who proposed the idea.

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with scientific observations. Let’s see what data points we now have:

1) Average annual temperatures have not surpassed 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)

2) Average annual temperatures are now trending downward since 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)

3) Ocean temperatures have not risen since 2000 when the 3000 Argo buoys were launched. The buoys even show a slight decrease in ocean temperatures

4) The Arctic ice froze to February levels by December 07, there are 1mm more sq km than before (previous was 13mm sq km)

5) The Arctic ice is 20cm thicker than “normal” (whatever that is)

6) All polar bear pods are stable or growing (NOAA/PBS)

7) Mount Kilimanjaro is not melting because of global warming, rather “sublimation”

The Antarctic is not “melting”, it is growing in most places, the sloughing off at the edges is normal as the ice mass grows

9) The majority of the Antarctic is 8 degrees below “normal” (again, whatever that is)

10) The coveted .7 degree rise in temperatures over the last 100 years has been wiped out with last years below “normal” temperatures (NOAA coolest winter since 2001)

11) Al Gore's film was deemed “propaganda” in a court of law in the UK as many points could not be substantiated by scientists

12) It was also just revealed that some of the footage in Al's film was CGI. The ice shelf collapse was from the movie The Day After Tomorrow (ABC)

13) One of the scientists that originally thought that CO2 preceded the warming has now found with new data that the CO2 rise follows the warming (Dr David Evans)

14) August 2008 was the first time since 1913 there were no sun spots.

15) The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century (no SUVs)

16) Many scientists are now predicting 30 years of cooling.

17) The greenhouse effect is real, our small contribution to it cannot even be measured

18) Several publications, including those that are warmist have recently written that the natural cycles of the earth may mask AGW. Give me a break.

19) 31,000 scientist have signed a petition against AGW!

---------------------------

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims


“I am a skeptic...Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. As a scientist I remain skeptical.” -

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history...When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

I suspect that if you actually put it to referendum, most of the public would not support kicking Bill Moyers out of PBS.

I don't know if enough people would care either way. That's not a dig on Moyers, it's just the way things are.

PBS is not required to stay silent on politics, especially now that most important facts about the world are in some way politicized.

NO, but curiously "by law", public tv is supposed to be "balanced." It is not, but that's government. I don't mind liberal viewpoints on PBS or anywhere else, but there's no debate if there's no one speaking for the other side.

Biology is politicized (creation vs. evolution), meteorology is politicized (denial of global warming), geology is politicized (young-earth evangelical right-wingers vs. scientists), medicine is politicized (why are certain diseases thousands of times more common in developed countries than in wilderness -- pollution and industry, or lifestyle?), math is politicized (Bush disdains the study of math beyond calculus, as he implied in the 2000 debate). It's virtually impossible to do any kind of reporting without tainting it with your own knowledge of the world, which could be perceived by anybody who disagrees as political bias.

Well, it is said everything is political. I don't see evangelicals as having the kind of impact or posing the kind of threat liberals credit them with being. The so-called Religious Right has no legislation out there that's getting anywhere, while on the other side of the aisle the legislating is nonstop, and when that flops, activist judges simply change the laws to suit their needs. Six of the judges that "legalized" gay marriage in CA were supposedly R's.

Both sides accuse the others' scientists of being paid shills. 'Denial of global warming' implies there's solid proof of anthropogenic global warming. So far that's not the case; there is only a consensus among a portion of scientists. The thing I'm not keen on is the GW proponents, after suggesting the price tage for a "cleanup" of water vapor would be 45 trillion worldwide, also admit the positive effects of a Kyoto would be minimal at best.

In reply to this comment by jwray:
I suspect that if you actually put it to referendum, most of the public would not support kicking Bill Moyers out of PBS....

I bet that guy got his job by being damn good at meteorological forecast, if he's so bad on the screen.

^
From NASA site

The scientific goals of LIDAR are to:

* Study the evolution of aerosols and stratification of the atmosphere, as well as acquire meteorological and environmental information
* Provide measurements of atmospheric parameters not attainable by other techniques, such as the structure of the near-surface boundary layer and the dynamic of its scattering properties (this is actually the instrument's main objective)
* Measure the daily and seasonal variability and the vertical structure of the Martian atmosphere
* Detect cloud and fog appearances
* Measure incoming solar radiation and its correlation with atmospheric turbidity
* Measure the depolarization factor of the sky emission

hmmm, assume much and know even less, kinna like the folks who believe ol' Al here..
There are voices of dissent on this issue my friend, sorry you don't like the whole truth, and the folks who throw shit at liars, and spin-addicted media sluts, like Al Gore-

BALI, Indonesia - An international team of scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore, descended on Bali this week to urge the world to “have the courage to do nothing” in response to UN demands.

Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.
“Climate change is a non problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing,” Monckton told participants.

“The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)” Monckton added. (LINK)

Monckton also noted that the UN has not been overly welcoming to the group of skeptical scientists.

“UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings,” Monckton explained.

“It is a circus here,” agreed Australian scientist Dr. David Evans. Evans is making scientific presentations to delegates and journalists at the conference revealing the latest peer-reviewed studies that refute the UN’s climate claims.

“This is the most lavish conference I have ever been to, but I am only a scientist and I actually only go to the science conferences,” Evans said, noting the luxury of the tropical resort. (Note: An analysis by Bloomberg News on December 6 found: “Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.” - LINK)

Evans, a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, recently converted to a skeptical scientist about man-made global warming after reviewing the new scientific studies. (LINK)

“We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don’t cause global warming. We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years,” Evans said in an interview with the Inhofe EPW Press Blog. Evans authored a November 28 2007 paper “Carbon Emissions Don’t Cause Global Warming.” (LINK)

Evans touted a new peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists appearing in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society which found “Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence.” (LINK)

“Most of the people here have jobs that are very well paid and they depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. They are not going to be very receptive to the idea that well actually the science has gone off in a different direction,” Evans explained.

Read and understand, the world is being sold a bill of goods, the real reasons, lets hope we find out-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bali

drug-induced my ass-

thank you so much for taking the time to research that and contribute such a quality post

Q

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
nib, lucky for me they've got a fair amount of that PIG book available for free on Google books so I just took a quick look at it before I head to bed.

One of the things that stood out was a group of pie charts which shows carbon dioxide among a few other greenhouse gases. It's not a greenhouse gas if it has zero effect on global temperature.

The book was apparently written by a lawyer, Christopher Horner, who is a recognized expert on "global warming legislation and regulation". That's something, but he's no climatologist. Chapter 1 is dedicated to calling environmentalists "anti-American communists". The first paragraph was really all I needed to read to understand that this book has no value to me.

It's endorsed by Richard Lindzen, who is a climatologist and has worked in related fields as well. His position seems to be similar to what I said in my initial post; that the temperature is rising but we're not entirely sure why yet. He's been criticized for taking payment of $2500/day from oil/coal companies for consulting services. He's been funded and/or supported by Western Fuels and OPEC.

The book is also endorsed by a few senators, and nobody believes anything they say so I think we can just ignore that.

The following organizations have taken the stance that global warming is at least partially due to human activity:

The aforementioned IPCC
The National Science Academies of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the US
The US National Research Council
The American Meteorological Society
The American Geophysical Union
The American Institute of Physics
The American Astronomical Society
The Federal Climate Change Science Program
The American Association for the Advancement of Science
The Geological Society of London
The Geological Society of America
The American Chemical Society
The Institution of Engineers Australia
The American Association of State Climatologists
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists

The American Association of State Climatologists, by the way, is made up of state climatologists, assistant climatologists under the state climatologist and retired climatologists. They state a membership count of "approximately 150". That's 70 more than you claim exist in the country.

nib, lucky for me they've got a fair amount of that PIG book available for free on Google books so I just took a quick look at it before I head to bed.

One of the things that stood out was a group of pie charts which shows carbon dioxide among a few other greenhouse gases. It's not a greenhouse gas if it has zero effect on global temperature.

The book was apparently written by a lawyer, Christopher Horner, who is a recognized expert on "global warming legislation and regulation". That's something, but he's no climatologist. Chapter 1 is dedicated to calling environmentalists "anti-American communists". The first paragraph was really all I needed to read to understand that this book has no value to me.

It's endorsed by Richard Lindzen, who is a climatologist and has worked in related fields as well. His position seems to be similar to what I said in my initial post; that the temperature is rising but we're not entirely sure why yet. He's been criticized for taking payment of $2500/day from oil/coal companies for consulting services. He's been funded and/or supported by Western Fuels and OPEC.

The book is also endorsed by a few senators, and nobody believes anything they say so I think we can just ignore that.

The following organizations have taken the stance that global warming is at least partially due to human activity:

The aforementioned IPCC
The National Science Academies of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the US
The US National Research Council
The American Meteorological Society
The American Geophysical Union
The American Institute of Physics
The American Astronomical Society
The Federal Climate Change Science Program
The American Association for the Advancement of Science
The Geological Society of London
The Geological Society of America
The American Chemical Society
The Institution of Engineers Australia
The American Association of State Climatologists
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists

The American Association of State Climatologists, by the way, is made up of state climatologists, assistant climatologists under the state climatologist and retired climatologists. They state a membership count of "approximately 150". That's 70 more than you claim exist in the country.

....pick the disenters that look like the biggest morons, use a cadre of goons, spin, and rhetoric to topple the scales, the facts so deftly piled high with the "experts" stamp of approval, oh and forgot about the most important part, give little or no audience to the dissenting members of the oceanagraphic, meteorological, and solar phenomenologists, and you have the entity that is , Global Warming.......

and the cycle continues, as do the cycles of our planet, and of time, space, and matter..........

Not quite theo. For one thing, most of the global warming deniers ARE scientists. Even meteorological scientists. They just happen to be getting paid off by Big Oil and the American Enterprise Institute. Furthermore, one of the reasons that "An Inconvenient Truth" has been so successful is because it takes an extremely complex subject and reduces it to simple terms for, as you say, the simple-minded. Just because it's reduced to where most people can understand it, doesn't mean it is factually incorrect.

Also, I'm guessing you didn't actually watch this video. They survey a view scientific studies regarding building freefall and timing. Yes, real scientists, looking at really complex things like floors pancaking on top of each other and weakened internal structures. And sure, you can say that they are cherry-picking a study, but as you said earlier you shouldn't just throw stones you should provide evidence. so I'm challenging you to provide contradictory evidence to explain how a 110-story building that is collapsing floor by floor can do so at near freefall speeds.

From what I've heard, there is actually pretty good data going back that far, taken from meteorological stations around a good part of the globe. What was less accurate was the thermometers themselves, so I assume a certain amount of correction and interpolation had to be done to produce this animation. Regardless, it's nicely done -- now we just need a version that goes back 80,000 years so we can see whether we're just experiencing a blip in the curve, or the end of the world.

Right, I mean, I'm sure there is data on average global temperature back to then from ice cores, lone meteorological outposts and the lot but there's no way that the spatial resolution on that data is as high back then as it is now with satellite data. And that being what the animation depicts, what I'd REALLY like to see is how that data was interpolated from simulation. Information which I don't see on the nasa site.