[Dr.Zoidberg]

From Pirate: Nonsense, mr engineer.

You pick at the article, yet your points absolutely ratify exactly what it is telling us. Its message is two-fold: (1) proponents of "a coming global warming calamity" will accept one side of the data, and willingly and abruptly dismiss anything to the contrary as if it never existed, which is not scientific and is more like propganda in a cause,...

Which contrary?

A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!

The opinion of a individual. There are always a few people with other opinions, but how long does it take for the writer to find an article of someone who plough a lonely furrow with this opinion? Also don´t forget, this quote is from 1972!

Meteorologists are a standing joke for getting predictions wrong even a few days ahead....

I don´t know which weather forecast the writer watches every day but mostly the predictions are right. Maybe in the past the hit ratio was bad. Nowadays the accuracy is about 90%.

...The same jokers are being taken seriously when they use computer models to predict the weather 100 years hence.

Like I said, no one can tell us which climate we will have in the future (the predictions for 100 years widely differing) but every model predicts a global warming!

Here for example a nice article about the big influence of the industry (oil):
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...g-tobacco.html

Enough said, to where the big money is and the interests of all persons concerned. Like always, it´s all about the money.

...and (2) the global warming crowd jumps to the most dire consequences possible, without ever stopping for a millisecond to consider if a few degrees of warming might ultimately be countermanded by other natural factors in the design of our world.

This is not true. Here some scientific proven facts:

If we talk about global warming you have to know the coherences of the greenhouse effect!

At first there is a natural greenhouse effect:

The earth is warmed by the sun and at the same time radiates heat to the atmosphere. If solar radiation and irradiation of the earth are balanced than theoretically (i.e. an atmosphere without any CO2 and water vapor) there will be a mathematical global average temperature of –18°C. But as we have water vapor, clouds and CO2 of volcano's the irradiation of the earth is limited and so the mathematical global average is 15°C (a difference of 33°C!).

Now to the man made greenhouse effect:

Beside of water vapor there are some other gases which bottle the thermal radiation up, called greenhouse gases like: CO2, methane, laughing gas and ozone for example. This fact leads to a warmer atmosphere which can absorb more dewiness, which will boost the greenhouse effect even more. You also have to know that CO2 takes effect not until 30 years after emission, has a durability of at least 100 years and has a share of 50% to the greenhouse effect.

In the past we have had many temperature fluctuations because of big volcanic eruptions (e.g. Krakatau) or slowing of the gulf stream (little Ice Age) for example. Essential is the difference of the mathematically global average temperature. Since the start of the weather records the temperature difference before 1900 was 0,5°C lower, after that date we are 0,8°C over the average. 30% of that can be ascribed the increased activity of the sun, but the rest is the result of a man made climatic change, with a verisimilitude of 95%. A lot of the increase of the warming goes direct into the oceans, that is alongside the melting ice of the poles, why we notice an advance of the sea level of 3mm per year.

Also from the weather records you can identify the start of the industrialization. If you will bring the argument that the weather records don´t exist long enough, you can detect the development of the climatic in the stratification of the ice (like the annual rings of a tree) at north pole or antarctic.

But even if so, if it does actually occur, what happens? There is less ice and more warm land. There is more sun. There is more evaporation and rain. More fresh water. More wind and pollination. Put all that together, and what do you ultimately get? You get more vegetation. That makes LESS carbon dioxide, and more oxygen. More cloud cover. Wow. A completely natural PENDULUM OF NATURE that will gradually send the climate back the other direction without government mandate and intervention.

Yes there is more evaporation (about 6% more per degree Celsius). The rain will be more but unequally distributed around the world and the year. There will be more regions with long torrid periods. Otherwise the intensity of precipitations will rise. There will be more rain for example in a shorter period of time, which leads to more floodings.

Otherwise there will be be long period of droughts because of the unequally distribution through the year, and because of that the ground-water level will fall. Freshwater will be more and more valuable like oil nowadays. At the moment there are already more countries with problems in getting freshwater as countries with an excess of freshwater.

Like I said before the biggest amount of the warming goes direct into the oceans. Warmer oceans save more energy (also does a warmer atmosphere with more dewiness) which will lead to a rising number of storms (hurricanes) with bigger intensity and, because water is one of the best heat reservoir, the hurricane season will last longer.

There will not be more vegetation as the natural disasters which destroys vegetation (like storms, wildfires, droughts) will rise. And how long does it last till new trees grow up? Not fast enough. Furthermore the most amount of the CO2 emission is not absorbed by the vegetation but by the oceans again!


Every alien company can affirm you a gain of natural disasters in the last years. The rise of the so called once in a century disasters amass ominous the last few years, all around the world.