This has been a terrible month for global warming zealots as their “flat earth” science is crumbling around them. Tired of being cowered by a pack of global warming thugs, real scientists are beginning to speak out about the hype.
The latest is University of Copenhagen Professor Bjarne Andresen, who working with Canadian scientific peers, concluded that the “global warming” urban legend is more a political issue than a scientific fact.
Speaking in terms that will glaze the eyes of knuckleheads everywhere who bow to the temple of Gore, Dr. Andresen said:
“It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth,” said Andresen, an expert on thermodynamics. “A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate”.
See UPI for much more.
[tags]global+warming, myth[/tags]
March 20th, 2007 at 6:16 am
Got a chance to read the paper. It really is just a wonky statement on the fact that the average temperature is not representative of any given temperature around the world. It’s a no-duh kind of paper, and nowhere in it does it refute the theory of global warming, nor does it claim to.
It’s like saying there is no such thing as the temperature of your living room, because the air by the window is warmer (or colder) than the rest of the room. Whatever.
Besides, temperatures are monitored relative to that station’s average, not the global average. These are called the temperature anomolies. It’s basically its deviation from the norm. These are the measurements that are used to assess climate change — along with many others. Not simply averaging the earth’s temperature readings and comparing it to last year.
March 20th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES
AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.
HOUSE # 1:
A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a
pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE
MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American
household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas
runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked
was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national
average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern
“snow belt,” either. It’s in the South.
HOUSE # 2:
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this
house incorporates every “green” feature current home construction can provide.
The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled o n arid
high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds
geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the
ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools
it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and
it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling
system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon
underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into
underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then
irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area
blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.
HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville , Tennessee .
It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.
HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford , Texas . Also
known as “the Texas White House,” it is the private residence of the President
of the United States , George W. Bush.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:58 am
Hrm. House #2?
Again a subject change. I can concede that Gore could make some more changes in his personal life to be more “carbon-neutral”. Your descriptions above don’t paint the whole picture, but I am not going to defend Gore. He uses a shit-ton of energy.
But does this have any bearing on the scientific evidence concerning the reality of Anthropogenic Global Warming?
March 21st, 2007 at 7:19 am
Erik – do you only think of one thing are do you just like the word “anthropogenic?”
Is “Shit-ton” a new unit of the metric system or the old English system?
March 21st, 2007 at 7:22 am
As for subject change – there is a parable that Jesus told about a man with two sons. He asked each of them to go to the fields and help with the harvest. One said he would and did not, while the other complained, but did the work anyway. Jesus then asked who was the more faithful son – the answer was the one who did the work.
So who is the more faithful environmentalist here? Clearly George Bush does what Gore preaches.
No subject change here Erik.
March 21st, 2007 at 9:32 am
MBT, love that about the two houses. Would make a great post!
March 21st, 2007 at 11:24 am
I like to use the word “anthropogenic” (as in AGW) because it distinguishes from “natural” global warming. And yes, it is a subject change.
Bush is obviously an “enviro-whacko”.
April 16th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
[...] we can do is continue pointing out what the real experts have to say about the natural warming and cooling that will always be part of life as we know [...]
October 26th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Re: Erik’s post…
It does have a bearing on the argument because if Al Gore really believed all the BS he spews then wouldn’t he be acting accordingly instead of being the paradigm of profligate energy usage? Sorry, but Gore’s actions tell me all I need to know about his REAL thoughts on global warming. It MUST be a charade.
April 19th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
The original article has a new URL:
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2007/03/15/Danish-scientist-Global-warming-is-a-myth/UPI-74031173981527/