Print PDF
Favorite
Email
The world is warming. Resources are dwindling. Clean water is in short supply. Recycling is ever more important.
Inspired by a trip to the Eden Project in Cornwall, this is a neat trick to save water in your vegetable garden, especially plants growing in pots and troughs, which dry out more quickly. You can get specially-made ceramic widgets, but this is my version made from recycled materials.
I call it the Scrooge Bottle.
Inspired by a trip to the Eden Project in Cornwall, this is a neat trick to save water in your vegetable garden, especially plants growing in pots and troughs, which dry out more quickly. You can get specially-made ceramic widgets, but this is my version made from recycled materials.
I call it the Scrooge Bottle.
Remove these ads by
Signing UpStep 1Materials and Tools
For each plant or pot you want to water, you need a bottle, and something absorbent to fill it with, such as cotton wool, old socks or the off-cuts from your jeans.
No matter how many plants you want to water, you need a knife, a pin and a pair of pliers.
No matter how many plants you want to water, you need a knife, a pin and a pair of pliers.
| « Previous Step | Download PDFView All Steps | Next Step » |
One other thing though ... I am sad to see important facts dying away. Last year a Russian hacker published private emails from a British university which was a main center for the global warming theory "research." The facts caught the researchers with their pants down and forced them to admit they fudged the data. One of the documents even had a researcher saying they could not account for the lack of warming. It is a dead, non-scientific issue as science and history BOTH have disproved it. Greenland - check its history - the vikings farmed areas of it that we cannot farm today b/c they are under ice! It was warmer back then!
The global warming tool is only pushed by those who are sorry their political tool has been exposed as the farce it is. The politically controlled news media has been trying to force feed us for years knowing that if they talked about it enough, it would "become" fact. In the late '80s they openly called it a theory. A few years later it as pushed as fact. These were the times when they were saying the temperature on Lake Erie shores in PA would be hot enough to grow palm trees by the year 2000. Obviously this did not happen.
They also - pre 2000 - had their precious proof-because-of-the-hole-in-the-ozone crumbled - the hole closed! You never heat of this anymore b/c, again, science proved them wrong. However, in its day, you the ozone hole was all the rage in the media - you could not watch TV without the subject coming up at least 3 to 5 times an evening.
Their succesive failures, but political agenda and media support, forced upon them a subtle change... the name of the theory changed from "Global Warming" to the now more politically correct term of "vlimate change." People were questioning why the hotter temps were not evident - in fact things have been cooler (as they are at present when i write this). So they decided to come up with a way to explain they still were correct by saying that global warming would could cause global cooling. In other words, they were covering their backs that no matter which way the weather turned, they could claim they were right.
Convenient... very, very convenient.
Climate change, aka global warming which brings cooler yearly temperatures as the media tries to brainwash and tell us not to believe our senses - we are actually warming up (Orsen Wells 1984) is a dead scientifically - so lets all please let it rest.
You can still, I m sure, access online all of the documents that were hacked and read them yourself. You will also find places like Wikipedia are slanted slightly to try to deny the facts -- so do some more-than-surface-level research. As with most media outlets, I am sure Wikipedia's slant will increase as time goes on until they totally deny the truth that this theory is nothing but farce. Who knows, give it 20 more years and they might totally deny the even ever took place.
Sorry for the book - but as a science teacher, I hate to see this fallacy as it leads to everyone swallowing more government control such as the ridiculous, and unneeded "cap and trade taxes" that they wanted to force on our society. It is nothing but bureaucrats making a larger power grab and robbing more money from "we The People.".
Maybe the common terminology should have been "Water Warming" because that, indeed, is truly happening. Water temperatures ARE rising, leading to melting glaciers & icecaps, rising water levels and changes to the underwater ecosystem including species decimations. My San Francisco Bay Area city is currently having an Environmental Impact Report prepared for a proposed conversion of 1400 acres of salt flats into a suburb of 30,000. The developers are being asked to build 24 ft high levees looking to probabilities 100 years into the future.
"Water Warming" doesn't have the same appeal and ring to it because people don't live underwater and out of sight is out of mind. "Climate Change" is the current turn-of-phrase for the non-scientific but the issues remain the same.
Through the years when someone told me they believed man was causing the earth to warm up, I would explain to them that they also then must believe in "intelligent water." Why? Because, somehow, water had decided it wanted to retain its temperature while the rest of the environment rose in temperature. The Navy records prove this.
As to the glaciers, It is a known fact that when the Vikings inhabited Greenland, much of what is now under ice/glaciers was farmland! This is a part of their history. This shows that man's activities, even if they were the cause of some temperature change, would actually be restoring the earth to what it used to be and there is no reason for alarm b/c the world would be returning to the more "pure," state of existence before the industrial revolution!
And, I admit I have to look again for his news, but two interesting bits of info specifically concerning glaciers is that "fact" of the Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035 was taken back since the (failed) global warming conference in Copenhagen last year. There also was a recent report of glaciers actually growing in other areas. However, I admit this paragraph is very unscientific as i do not have the actual data to cite. I put it here as a seed of information from which to do some research.
The modern studies - as was admitted after the exposure of the emails - are tainted to prove a theory. They are not scientific, they have an agenda. True science seeks facts - it does not seek to prove anything.
Want more proof? If you were around in the late 80's-90's, do you remember the irrefutable, absolute, 100% proof positive-of-global-warming that they continually harped on every single time you looked at a newspaper, TV program etc.? Yes, I speak of the ozone hole! This was a media-blitz-produced household term at the time. I got so very tired of having this thing brought to my attention so many times every single day!
And then, just as the man made pollutants were supposed to reach the upper levels of the atmosphere to destroy massive amounts of ozone (which was stated over and over as destined to happen around the year 2000), the ozone hole mysteriously closed itself up! There obviously was no danger at all.
And immediately, rather than proclaim the truth that the hole was gone and that things were better than what we thought, what happened? The media just diverted attention and silently let the issue disappear. I did see a small satellite picture in an issue of USA today that the ozone hole had closed itself. However, it was not on the nightly news, and it was not the front page news it SHOULD have been. I knew then the disappearance would be ignored and the ozone hole "proof" would just quietly disappear from being a household term. Sure enough, you never hear of it anymore
This blundered proof-positive-of-global-warming should have been heralded as the death knell for this politically motivated farce on mankind - the biggest sham in history. But no, people still bought the brainwashing of the media and hence have wasted so very many tax dollars.
So now in 2010 a Russian hacker exposes the British group who are leaders, and most responsible for this theory even being proposed in the first place. The research people themselves even ADMIT they did altered the data and were playing politics in wanting to find ways to silence scientists with data showing the theory false (BTW desiring to silence an opposing view is definitely NOT the action of an innocent person doing pure research!
The response of the media and general masses? Again people are fed the lie over and over by the media (like Obama downplaying the leaked emails by saying they were "just a small issue") that these staunch facts prove nothing and we should ignore them (Yes! Do not confuse us with the facts!).
We are seeing the fruits of this politically driven push even now as I have actually heard people saying that the original researchers who were caught by the publication of their emails did not admit to their wrongdoing. However, these so-called scientists DID release a statement that they falsified the data just a day or so after the email were leaked. I predicted when this admission was released that the mainstream media would definitely NOT focus on this info, and within a year people would never hear of it again. Guess what....
Global warming is too big of a cash- crop for those involved with it. It is a large drive for the government to be able to collect/spend even more tax money (cap and trade) and increase their regulatory muscle.
In the last century their oh-so-publicized "proof positive" ozone hole disappeared, the theory was proven in error, and the media hushed up the facts. In this century, the theory once again was proven a lie by the original proponents of this lie, and again the media pushes to ridicules the proof and hushes up damaging evidence.
Since global warming has the power of being politically correct to drive it forward, the media and those who gain financially from it will continue to tout their faith in "scientists'" abilities to predict our weather for the next 50 years whilst simultaneously cursing their local weather forecaster who cannot accurately predict the weather for the next 7 days!
What an amazing day we live in!
Actual science has shown that there is no man-made climate change; history proves the earth was much warmer in times past and did very well; more CO2 in the air - IF there was a way we could possibly produce enough of it, would actually be beneficial since plants thrive with more CO2. If the earth were warmer, growing season would be longer, hence high food production would also be an added benefit.
I am not sure why you cited the San Fran Bay project you mentioned. There are many such projects which have been influenced to spend extra money b/c of this unscientifically based, self-proven and man-proven (but hushed in the name of the almighty dollar) theory.
Check the facts I have listed. You will find that the entire climate change concept is not backed by data - unless they choose to alter it - as we know has been admitted to have been done :^)
It is still with us, acidifiying lakes and water-tables. Hundreds, thousands of acres of Scandinavian forests have been damaged by acid rain caused by the fumes of British industry. The danger to humans is the knock-on effect of damaging the food-chain at its very beginning.
I've no idea what you mean by rain forest "corruption", but if you mean deforestation, that is also very real, and an incredible danger to the planet as a whole, destroying the diversity that has evolved to be essential to the stability of the planetary ecosystem, and accelerating spoil erosion, which in turn increases flooding and disrupts the nutrient balance of the oceans.
(I'd like to see you try and persuade anybody to reduce birth-rates. China tried to legislate it, and failed miserably.)
Yes, it was an issue that needed dealing with. However, the extent to which they were instilling "fear" in us as teachable school-aged children was a con. We needed education on it - but it was almost preached as a religion for some people.
I think the unfortunate truth is that the media believes in hyping a crisis to the nth degree so they can guarantee someone will act. The only problem is that it creates fanatics and can end up with expensive "solutions" to non-existent problems - such as a carbon tax. And the people perpetrating these scares get to make off with more taxpayer money - while laughing at the laziness/stupidity of the common man who won't take the time to do some honest research/logical thinking for themselves. The "research" a lot of people do is to set out to prove instead of using the scientific method. Someone trying to prove THEIR THINKING to be true can always locate what they are looking for. Someone seeking the truth will find opposing ideas and sort through the actual facts (and see where the facts come from) to try to DISCOVER the truth.
I wish I had kept a great article done in a Canadian lake - I do not even know which publication it was or the year :^( - other then it being before 2000. They greatly, and deliberately raised the acidity level of the lake, kept records, , and the system recovered within 7 years. They had picks of emaciated fish etc.
They believed, of course, that the way the system recovered was dilution of the acidic water from incoming, natural springs, rivers, etc. However, the amount of acid they had to initially add to the lake to significantly raise the PH level to the point of damage was beyond what they said acid rain ever could do.
However, I realize this is hearsay since I cannot cite the source. It may be on the internet somewhere. I do remember, very well, the look of those poor, deformed fish though!
By the time the lake reached pH5.6 (about the same pH as your skin), the exoskeletons of invertebrates started to dissolve and soften, allowing an epidemic of fungal infections. [[other sources report the aftermath - although the pH did eventually stabilise, many species never returned, and others were permanently damaged. In the 1970s, some Canadian lakes had pH levels as low as 4 - more acid than neat vinegar.]]
(New Scientist, Nov 5th 1987)
In the same issue, a report on how acid pollution had damaged 16-29% of Europe's forests (varying by country).
There was understandable, justified panic. Acid rain had the genuine potential to cause mass starvation through the collapse of the food-chain, contamination of drinking water (Lake Baikal, holding 20% of the world's fresh water, was a victim), plus if the foliage damage spread there would be mass crop-failures and (potentially) a massive drop in atmospheric oxygen.
Fortunately, action was taken, and the risk is being averted. Unfortunately,most people take their "facts of history" from politically-biased mass-media (Fox TV, anybody?), and the modern Conservative spin on acid rain is what you have presented - writing the danger off as hype, easily solved by modern science.
You may write all the above off as history, but it is still happening - just this week, Texan politicians were caught editing scientific reports to remove references to climate change and sea-level rise. Have a read, see if you still think environmental issues are over-hyped, or if they are a genuine danger that the people you voted for are trying to hide from you:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/14/rick-perry-texas-censorship-environment-report?CMP=twt_gu
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15342682
The problem, again, is that politics gets behind the scientific facts - no matter what side of the fence someone sits on.
But there are true scientists who also know AGW is a political hoax:
"Nobel Prize-winning physicist and erstwhile Obama supporter Ivar Giaever has resigned as a Fellow from the prestigious American Physical Society to protest the organization's promotion of manmade global warming fears.
Norwegian-born Dr. Giaever shared the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973 for work at General Electric related to superconductors."
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12797/Exclusive-Nobel-PrizeWinning-Physicist-Who-Endorsed-Obama-Dissents-Resigns-from-American-Physical-Society-Over-Groups-Promotion-of-ManMade-Global-Warming
I know nothing of this website except it quotes the Dr.
In the CRU documents, the damaging emails were "explained" as being out of context. however, the programmer left notes to himself (as is typical of programmers to help ID subroutines/modules) showing "artificial adjusting" of data:
"function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$ datathresh=datathresh
;
; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES ; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate
; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE
; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE
; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS.
; pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures."
There is another identical statement further in the code:
"
;
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions ; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures."
in other words data manipulation - note the word "artificially."
The source files with the comments that are the topic of this thread are in this folder of the FOI2009.zip file
The data files these are in:
/documents/osborn-tree6/mann/oldprog
in the files
maps12.pro
maps15.pro
maps24.pro
Another programmers note:
From documents\harris-tree\recon_esper.pro:
; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,
; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
;
Note the wording here “avoid the decline” whereas in the similar ERU email the words were “hide the decline.”
Artificial data manipulation is unacceptable and rips the mantle of science off any study being conducted. This is where politics enters. This is where the fear factor is introduced and personal goals become the actual issue at hand - as with AGW.
BTW - here is a good place to dig.
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/climategate-30-year-timeline/
Another thing - I don't watch Fox. I don't look at conservative blogs as gospel truth. I look at both sides of an issue since I am old enough to know I have made mistakes in the past and will continue to do so. I have a mind and use it for research and verification. When I see corrupt dealings, it is a red flag that will normally show true logic and scientific method have been abandoned. This has happened over and over with most media-pushed issues for quite some time now.
"'You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. What I mean by that is that it's an opportunity to do things you could not do before." Rahm Emanuel - former Obama Chief of Staff and Advisor to Bill Clinton.
Educate - yes, but corrupting science to force an issue is unacceptable and has roots in hype/propaganda.
Yes - I distinctly remember acid rain threats. But once again the "proven, factual, no doubt about it 'science' of the day floundered.
Its stuff like this - with the rest of the political side embracing this type of stuff, that stifled us from being on Mars by now like everyone back in those days thought we would be. As kids we all just knew this was the next logical step. In fact all the old Sci-fi films from the era just assumed it was going to be true.
But the unfortunate truth of the matter is the liberal education system kids and (colleges) have been engulfed in the last few decades have raised a bunch of people who embrace anything they are fed without thinking about it. When they do make an honest attempt, a lot of times they just read information that is xeroxed without looking at the source. They then become "knowledgeable." But unfortunately, most of the knowledge they have is based on politically correct garbage from the past 20-30 years and therefore has no more truth to it than when it was dreamed up as fantasy to aid in stifling critical reasoning skills.
People under this education system have been taught to reply to those who oppose their views (and what they have been indoctrinated with) by diverting the topic from open-minded, objective debate. They do this by example in training them to use an ad hominem approach w/out ever distinctly defining the term. Since most people (on both sides of an issue) have never heard of the term, and the approach has a natural "push back" reflex reaction from the receiver, the topic of discussion gets diverted and turns into an angry, name calling event. The serious, objective debate is lost and no one learns anything from the other - hence we have what has been referred to as a nation of sheeple.
Its great to help people see this and watch their reactions when they break out of the bubble they were trapped in.
There have been study after study proving this. How do you explain the climate change denier hired by the Koch brothers to go out and research to disprove climate change, then came back and said exactly the opposite? Through his research he proved that climate change is true, and reported exactly that. Of course, if all you're looking at is Fox News, that would change your perspective substantially.
How then would you also explain News Corp, Fox News' parent company, going through a huge green effort? And how would you explain Rupert Murdoch saying we can't afford to not take action on climate change?
I have told my students that they can believe in global warming if they wish. However, they also, then, must believe in what I call the "intelligent water theory."
Since the navy has shown no overall rise (or warming trend) in ocean temperatures, then the water must somehow have intelligently developed its own cooling mechanism since the supposed (but noticeably absent and admitted so by the "scientists" who were caught with their pants down) global warming heat influx has supposedly warmed the whole earth without being able to alter the overall temperature of the earth's water. The entire planet is mostly water, everything in the environment supposedly has heated up, and yet the water remains untouched. The fact of the water remaining constant is there. To think the water can not be touched by the rest of the areas of the planet is fantasy. Heat transfer does not work this way. This is science.
You mentioned CO2 levels. You then mention computer models working on sample cores. These are the same type of advanced computers, no doubt, that told NASA, without a doubt, they would be able to see the first rocket impact on the moon last year (when they were looking for proof of water on our nearest planet neighbor). I remember hearing this before the impact and deliberately watching the event as it unfolded. Yes - the rocket impacted - no - we did not se it.
Again, you blur the line of what is science and what is theory. A computer "model" is not scientific data in itself. It is a way to theorize based on collected data. The problem is that since there are many different ways of interpreting data, computers are not foolproof and therefore, are not scientific proof. They only add to theory. Remember the plight of the bumblebee and computers? Back in the 80's and 90's when all this theory was being MADE into "fact", they were saying how the computers of the day were showing it was physically impossible for a bee to fly - yet the bees were (and still are) do (doing) it. According to those same computers, flame was too complex of a structure to be able to analyze. And yet there it was right in front of them. And we are saying our computer models can unerringly tell us what CO2 levels were in the upper atmosphere in pre-historic times? This is not science. It is, again, non-proveable theory developed from collected data. And, after all, we are told that scientists have been fudging their data anyway and fooling us all - their OWN admissions! This is scientific because we have their data, we have their admissions. This is not theory.
The farcical theory being proposed says that mankind has caused the warming (man caused a risen CO2 level in the atmosphere). Remember the Greenland example (science - and history hand in hand and undeniable)? So how did the Vikings produce al of their CO2? Look up the modern, scientific research that has shown temperatures in Medieval times were much hotter than today. What people miss here is that the earth obviously is in a cooler cycle than it was when the vikings farmed Greenland and during medieval times. There have been NORMAL and natural warming periods in earth's history that were before the industrial revolution. In fact, do some honest research on sunspot activity and you will find there is a correlation between this and warming trends also.
True science - the definition being OBSERVATION and collection of data to form a hypothesis - does not dismiss the myriad of facts showing the earth has had warmer periods - long ones- than what we are experiencing now. And since these periods were before industrialization, we have no data whatsoever to conclude that IF there was any warming going on today, that mankind has produced it and we are not simply experiencing another one of the NATURAL warming cycles. Re-read that. Another way of stating it is simply that since there have been warming cycles throughout history, we cannot factually say mankind has made any of them. In fact, it is kind of ludicrous to assume that the overall temperature of the earth never had major ups and downs during the time of its existence.
As to FOX news - I have no idea what you are talking about because I do not watch FOX news. However, I also fail to understand your saying I am discounting real scientific research when you are using the opinions of news channels as support for what you say. Opinion is not science. And, one more time, I will repeat, the "real" science you quote has been admitted as being altered to what the researchers wanted, and, therefore, is a sham.
As to the person you named who was hired by the Koch brothers. I know not of whom you speak. However, when you understand the scientific community, you will also understand they have their own "political" structure. A person who does not "go along with the crowd" can very often find themselves not respected and receiving no more government money for grants et cetera. I do not know if this was the case with this man, but there have been quite a few of these people (again referring to the admissions).
As to this man "proving" the theory. This also is a misused term to get people to take a side on an issue. Scientific proof, by definition, requires an individual to be able to reproduce the same results to support the theory he has proposed from collected data. No one has positively proven this theory. For that matter, no one has positively disproven it either! However, the actual data, admission of lying, and historic facts show the most likely of the two positions is that mankind has not produced a warming trend. It amazes me how some of the coldest years we have recorded have occurred since this "snow job" has been perpetrated, and yet people will listen to what they are told is science instead of observing (along with some solid, in depth, scientific, non-opinionated research).
the facts, as admitted by the researchers who admitted the whole thing a farce, also had within inter-office emails messages speaking of political agenda , he is, no doubt, one of many who fell into the same trap one of many who were into the I have no idea, however, again , this is not science. It is simply a man. If he showed his data and it was verified - then this would be science. As it is - this is a man saying he did something (and especially in a political issue - things like money can get in the way as well as reputation).
No science is when a scientist openly admits he fudged his own data to make the theory seem true. Science is when the scientist themselves say they collected the data but can find no warming trends. And this IS what happened.
The problem is people get their emotions behind this farce and are too proud to admit they have been duped.
First of all why do you assume the medieval warm period is due to CO2? Were you being sarcastic?
Secondly:
the warmest period of the last 2,000 years prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1°C and 0.2°C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980. -Solomon, Susan Snell; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007)
If parts of greenland had trees and plants at one time it doesn't mean that the whole globe was warmer: the IPCC First Assessment Report of 1990 discussed the "Medieval Warm Period around 1000 AD (which may not have been global)" The IPCC Third Assessment Report from 2001 summarised research at that time, saying "... current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries"
As far as water temps, It may take much longer for water temps to change.
As a science teacher you know about the amount of joules needed to change the temperature of water is quite a bit. It may be the case that the water temp will lag behind the atmospheric temp. Also the the ocean ice at the poles (as long as we still have some left) may be acting as a buffer.
I have been in scientific research, and (sadly) I know how political it can be. All research should be taken with a grain of salt, anybody could be fudging data, but a good theory will stand the test of time. Even Mendel fudged data about his peas and he's considered the father of modern genetics.
They didn't! This is the point that science shows... excess CO2 is not necessarily a cause for an increase in the temperatures of the world. In fact, an excess of CO2 would actually be beneficial, although we have no proof it would increase the temp.
We also have to remember that since the authors of the global warming farce, themselves, have admitted that they fudged their own data, that they lied since the data does not match up with any global warming they were proposing, that they also were trying to find ways of silencing/ridiculing publications from scientists who did not agree with their false theory, and that the fact is the politically correct crowd in congress gave grants to those who were pro-global warming (people going out to prove the theory rather than study it - or people trying to find data to support the theory - rather than just collect data), it is very obvious that statements/data supporting this author-proclaimed-fairy-tale are anything but true science.
If John Doe is a politically powerful figure who claims the moon is green cheese, and there is a lot of money to be made by pushing the idea; and then people seek to prove the theory correct so report data which supports the green cheese theory; then the original author is caught red handed and says he made it up - the moon really is NOT green cheese - then how can we quote data stating the green cheese theory is true when the author claims it is a fantasy to begin with?
You state the IPCC says that " ... current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries"says the Medieval Warm Period'"
This sort of sounds like current day where there are no global mean temperatures changes being experienced! So as much as they are saying the older warm periods "appear to have little utility..." they are saying that the former conditions have no relevence to the current conditions which mimic the ancient ones! One of the larget pro-GW arguments nowadays is that GW does not necessarily mean that all global temps are simultaneously affected. A good many places are experiencing record cold, some glaciers are melting, some are growing, some places have record heat. By the IPCC's very statement they are saying things in the past are just like today - aka the status quo of nothing global happening here!
As to the ice being a buffer - just how much ice would it take to make the water retain its temperature? It takes an awful lot of ice cubes in a glass to actually make a drink cooler. One or two will not do the trick. If significant amounts of ice have actually melted (remember the fudged data we have been being fed), it would seem the 70 percent of the earth surface, plus all of the ocean depths, would need more than all of the ice in the world (ice makes up 10.4% of the earth's surface) to make an impact large enough to keep temps low considering how horrible the supposed raise in temps is since they started these records. Please also see that I am stating this as a logical assumption (please note that word) with no scientific backing. It does seem rather interesting though when looked at in this way. If only 10% of a drink being warmed is ice, I do not think the ice will be able to do too much except be melted rather quickly. This would be an interesting study - but not sure how it could actually be done - most likely there are too many variables to consider. A computer simulation is not pure science.
I agree with you that in the past a good theory would stand the test of time. But times change. Never before in history has mankind been so overwhelmingly powerful in political and global realms. As history has proven over and over, greed aids the "fudge factor." Never before in history has it been so simple to get information to the masses as quickly and readily as can be done today. Let's face it, anyone that cannot see the slant in mainstream media is blinder than the three mice. The media has been pushing this concept as fact despite it falling on its face so many times (which they cover). Never before in history have so many been able to gain so much by pushing an agenda while utilizing so powerful a tool to convince the masses.
Also, theories like the Bohr model are still here - but we know they are false. They stood the test of time b/c they helped us advance, but were definitely wrong.
Lets talk to the ozone hole and find the truth shall we?
Oops - forgot - its gone....
:^))
Sorry - I just had to add that - I was so sickened by having this crammed down my throat all those years. I really am glad it closed from this point of view specifically. :^)
sorry for errors - no time to edit
Since that start, I have read everything I can regarding ALL areas of scientific reporting, and long ago [before the "Global Warming" scam, came to the conclusion that Earth's warming/cooling and weather patterns were heavily related to the Sun's activity [solar "biorethyms (sp?)].
Back in the mid 70s I worked at a Forensic consulting engineering firm and became "best friend" with an excellent Forensic Chemist. When I asked him about the [at that time] incredible uproar over "Acid Rain," he responded that Man's contribution to that issue was so small as to be below being called even "background" effect.
He said that ALL of Man's contributions [acid products pollution] ,THROUGHOUT Man's existance, to Acid Rain did NOT equal the formation of NITROGEN oxides [becomes Nitric Acid when absorbed by falling rain] created by all the THUNDERSTORMS going on at ANY given time around the Earth.
Thus, yes, Man has contributed to Acid Rain, BUT... it has been/is NEGLIGIBLE!!!!!
It is my opinon the the same is true regarding so-called Global Warming/climate change or any of the other "Politically Correct" terms applied.
Yes, Man does contribute to the Greenhouse Effect, and to heat in the environment, BUT... it is via Greenhous Effect materials ALREADY here, and just recycled in FORM.
But, Man's contribution is not even on the radar of modifying the natural state of Earth's climate changes.
An ad hominem response, by definition, seeks to belittle the opponent based on nothing but statements against them. Also, by definition (not opinion), an ad hominem response is proof the author of it has abandoned logic and fact b/c they have nothing of substance with which to back up their position!
Their own words say. "Then there are those that simply reject climate change, NOT ON SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS, but on the grounds of IDEOLOGY and DOGMA."
[emphasis added]
So in other words the Navy's data proving the Ocean temperatures have had no mean rise since the late 1800's is "dogma and ideology?" This site claims the temperatures have increased - with nothing to back up their statement except imply people disagreeing with them are not scientific.
The site only "thin arguments" exist in opposition. They are saying the disappearance of the ozone hole is an ideologically thin argument even though it is gone and hence the gases did not accomplish the predicted destruction?
An ad hominem response aids a false cause by rallying people who are not familiar with an ad hominem approach.
Also, not all climate change is related to heating and cooling cycles that effect global weather patterns. One of the big ones we are dealing with is ozone which effects the amount of UV light that penetrates our atmosphere. That is something we can already measure the effects of and is a very serious problem.
The argument you are fighting is a strawman version of the real issue put forth by big business and those who support their interests. The government is not out to get you. The EPA is not 'over regulating' the world's industries. The issue at hand can not be so ignorantly dismissed. I'm sorry that unscientific people such as yourself who approach science only through the eyes of FOX news are able to teach in our school systems.
You assume I approach science only through the eyes of FOX news. The fact of the matter is I do not even watch FOX news. For that matter, I do not watch ANY media news. For 20 years I have been teaching science as it is defined - OBSERVATION and collection of data - resulting in hypothesis (which are NOT in themselves science, but scientific THEORY) - leading to experimentation to DETERMINE the validity of the hypothesis. Note that too many people nowadays use their data to "prove" their proposed theory - in other words they make the data fit their idea (and a lot of this is done without them thinking it over). However, the global warming scientists admitted they fudged their data. Theirs was not even an honest mistake - and they, themselves, said so!
At maximum, I believe actual scientific research has shown there may have been a .6 degree change during all of these years the theory has been touted. This is nowhere as severe as history records actual, natural, pre-industrial revolution warming trends to have been.
As to the ozone - thank you for explanation, but I am well versed in what the ozone is/does/et cetera. In fact, as a requirement for one of my upper level courses in college required a rather in depth study into atmosphereic gases, especially ozone.
I remember vividly back in 1988 when this warming theory was started. I was in the baltimore MD area. Every morning during that excruciatingly hot summer, a fog appeared each morning. The newspapers were reporting/quoting that scientists as saying this fog was due to global warming and it actually was composed of a chemical "identical in composition and structure to ozone, but was not ozone." WHAT??!
This was also the year it was "general knowledge" that all summers from then on would be as hot as it was in 1988 and palm trees would grow on the shores of Lake Erie by the year 2000. Um.... yeah.
BTW - these years were also the time when the newspapers were not ashamed to report that the actual derivation of the global warming theory was a political move towards creating globalism. At the time the papers were saying that the only issue that was thought could initiate a global mindset was an environmental one. Hence the birth of this theory.
Whatever had caused the ozone hole - which we now know had nothing to do with this theory - is now not working since the hole shut by itself. It was offered as proof of depleted ozone and global warming. It was one of their main babies to support their ideas. Now it is gone. They were saying how the whole earth was going to fry (which it would) since the ozone hole was actually ... growing (oops - another goof). The only ozone problem I ever heard global warming theorists talking about died when the ozone hole closed (embarrassing a lot of "scientists" and causing the media to take it off of prime time and tuck it under the carpet). What other threat have they now proposed to take its place?
As you can see, and this is just the tip of the iceberg when some in depth research is done, there was ample reason to be skeptical when the theory was born - and there is more than ample reason - especially since some of the top "scientists" who were promoting this theory from the beginning have admitted they lied! These are tangible facts which can be obtained/observed. This is science.
As to the government not out to get me. Here again is a supposition of motive smacking of an ad hominem response. However, I will let you know i do not cache food and weapons or belong to any secret societies :)
The fact of the matter, right now, is this theory is political at the highest levels. Congress reviewed the facts enough to say the Cap and Trade taxes were not valid since there are too many valid scientists who say global warming is not scientifically supported exist to ignore the fact that this is just theory. Add to this the admissions of the main people caught with their pants down and congress did not, thankfully, see it as valid enough to take even more out of our taxes to combat it..
So now comes the political part. The president, therefore, decides to spit in the historic processes set up in our Constitution and bypass congress by influencing the EPA to work his agenda on it instead. If this is not a classic case of politics - then what is?
What I have prided myself on from the start of my teaching career is not to let politically, or pseudo-scientific matters become the "doctrine" of the classroom. Unfortunately this is exactly what is happening in most schools - people cave into the pc theories of the day. My students have always been presented with evidence from both sides of an issue and told to THINK for THEMSELVES. This is a big no no in a lot of today's educational circles. I will not brainwash children into one position or another. however, when the scientific facts also overwhelmingly show a cow cannot fly, despite what the majority of the populace believes, I am not going to propose to them that they believe cows can fly just because everyone says they can. They need to examine the facts and see for themselves. I also encourage them to look up the background of the facts and people who were proffering their facts.
There are just too many cover ups, admissions of altering data, refusal to share collected data (only give out hypothesis), and outright political involvement in the global warming camp for it to be science. I do not see this on the other side of the issue. All I can find is history and theory based on unbiased observation and data collection.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html
https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/wg1-ar4.html
Here's a summary on what id discussed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
Here's publicly available data sets from NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/
If the data was factual, again I ask how we can tell it is not just another natural cycle such as the recorded ones in past history?