Climate change hits Mars!!, What? No humans on mars! How can this be? Options

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

What is the coincidence that both Mars and the earth are showing an increase in surface temperature at the same time? Maybe it has something to do with nature, or solar waves from the sun? Maybe more research is needed here afterall?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece



Or maybe there is a Martian invasion fleet taking off for earth right now!

[Blitz]

Hamma,

I read the article, and I'm fully aware that the author still wants to try to curb CO2 as much as possible. I knew it does not support my view fully but it does damper some of the alarmist claims like AL Gore’s extreme views like 9 of the last 10 hottest years on record are since 1995.

I have said repeatedly in this thread that Nuclear would do just that. (The author agrees as well)
I've read that if the US kept pace with France in the production of nuclear facilities to produce energy we would be UNDER the Kyoto agreement

Steve McIntyre, also kills the Hockey stick graph, showing the alarming trend that is causing a panic. So he is credible when he supports the position as you clearly pointed out in the article, is he still credible in the links below?

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/
“But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records. “

“But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.”
“Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape! “

http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=95

My point throughout this entire debate, is this:

1)A huge percentage of the data is based upon statistical modeling that is a hypothetical guess.

2)There are scientists out there that have found flaws within the data, and instead of open honest debate it is quietly reported, or the person challenging it is waved off as an idiot because they are not part of the climate change culture.

3)It is true that many opposing people have an axe to grind.
The same is true on the scientific side. The UN just hosted an 11,000 person conference about this, they want billions of dollars (Much from the US) to give to other countries. They also want to control and issue “Carbon Credits” http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cf...36275/story.htm
These credits will be like a global tax. (Hypothetically)It would work like this, say the US is issued 1,000,000 credits, but hey the economy grows more rapidly than they expected Hmm… I know we will just buy come carbon credits from the Congo, they never use theirs all they do is sell them. Wow instant global wealth transfer. ( Hint: This is why Bush asked at the G8 summit for only 15 nations to meet and come up with their own framework, so they could cut the UN and their agenda out)

4)There are HUGE resources promoting one side of the science, and the skeptics rarely if ever see press attention because they do not have the “if it bleeds it leads” catchy headlines that never will get equal time.

5)The extremist claims are intended to scare the hell out of everyone, and if it all turns out to be BS they can just claim well at least the planet is cleaner, but to what cost? I’d rather they be working on cleaning polluted rivers or lakes we get our drinking water from with the monies.

6)There are other solutions to the problems, rather than taxing and regulation (I personally think the damn near 50% tax I pay is high enough) If you think that the 50% number is crazy research it yourself (Hint it’s not just what they take out of your paycheck)

Some examples of solutions:

Nuclear power, (Envromentalists hate this )

Wind Turbines on the coasts (Martha’s Vineyard residents killed this)

Drilling off Florida to reduce Coal burning plants. (Florida residents say no)

Drilling in Anwar.

1 Billion dollar Grant for a 100 MPG car/SUV that is mass producable, cost effiecient and similar to a typical car ( cost and performance of Ford Explorer)

500 million dollar Grant for solar panels for home use that are affordable and will reduce typical home energy consumption by 50% (Affordable meaning the cost of a typical home furnace)

500 million dollar grant to create CO2 scrubbers that reduce Coal burning plant emissions by 30%, that are cost competitive with existing units, setting tax incentives for plants to move to them as the older units need repaired or replaced.

I’m sure all of the smart people out there could think of some more…


Finally, for everyone who thinks that the skeptics are completely off base please provide the links with the backup scientific data for the following:

What % off Greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere, (Please don’t forget to include water vapor in your percentages.), also please include the % effect on warming rates (I’ve read that Methane creates 20 times more impact than CO2.) Also please include accurate % of what if any of these substances are man made. (I.E. if there is 5% CO2 and 80% of that is natural then the net overall greenhouse CO2 made by man would be 1%)

Please provide a study, showing the % of CO2, Methane and all of the greenhouse gases, using the exact same testing method and source. (I.E. the test data should still be recording CO2 levels to today from the same ice core, not the Antartic ice core for a while, then shifting to the siple ice core, then to an atmospheric measuring station on Mauna Loa , Hawaii) Measuring CO2 on a volcano seems a little silly to me.
Please include findings on pressure reducing variations or accuracy, and degradation in the ice cores, as well as any comparisons to conflicting data in the geological or fossil records that may be more accurate.

I love old quotes:
”This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976 “

”If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)”


And here are your bullet points, shooting down anything anyone will ever question you about.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/...ng-sceptic.html

This is my last report, I love to debate, it’s educational and fun but I need to get back to the battlefield.


P.S. no offense to anyone here, good open discussion is what these and other issues should be about.