Global Warming is over. (Really, it is. No joke.)

Adjuster

Supramania Contributor
Here is another. Basicly says we have NOTHING to do with climate change. Get used to it.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279.pdf

Quote from this.

Executive Summary
The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human
activities have little to do with it. Instead, the warming seems to be part of a 1,500-year cycle (plus or
minus 500 years) of moderate temperature swings.
It has long been accepted that the Earth has experienced climate cycles, most notably the 90,000-
year Ice Age cycles. But in the past 20 years or so, modern science has discovered evidence that within
those broad Ice Age cycles, the Earth also experiences 1,500-year warming-cooling cycles. The Earth
has been in the Modern Warming portion of the current cycle since about 1850, following a Little Ice Age
from about 1300 to 1850. It appears likely that warming will continue for some time into the future, perhaps
200 years or more, regardless of human activity.
Evidence of the global nature of the 1,500-year climate cycles includes very long-term proxies for
temperature change — ice cores, seabed and lake sediments, and fossils of pollen grains and tiny sea creatures.
There are also shorter-term proxies — cave stalagmites, tree rings from trees both living and buried,
boreholes and a wide variety of other temperature proxies.
Scientists got the first unequivocal evidence of a continuing moderate natural climate cycle in the
1980s, when Willi Dansgaard of Denmark and Hans Oeschger of Switzerland first saw two mile-long ice
cores from Greenland representing 250,000 years of Earth’s frozen, layered climate history. From their
initial examination, Dansgaard and Oeschger estimated the smaller temperature cycles at 2,550 years.
Subsequent research shortened the estimated length of the cycles to 1,500 years (plus or minus 500 years).
Other substantiating findings followed:
● An ice core from the Antarctic’s Vostok Glacier — at the other end of the world from Greenland
— showed the same 1,500-year cycle through its 400,000-year length.
● The ice-core findings correlated with known glacier advances and retreats in northern Europe.
● Independent data in a seabed sediment core from the Atlantic Ocean west of Ireland, reported
in 1997, showed nine of the 1,500-year cycles in the last 12,000 years.
Other seabed sediment cores of varying ages near Iceland, in the Norwegian and Baltic seas, off
Alaska, in the eastern Mediterranean, in the Arabian Sea, near the Philippines and off the northern tip of
the Antarctic Peninsula all also showed evidence of the 1,500-year cycles. So did lake sediment cores
from Switzerland, Alaska, various parts of Africa and Argentina, as did cave stalagmites in Europe, Asia
and Africa, and fossilized pollen, boreholes, tree rings and mountain tree lines.
None of these pieces of evidence would be convincing in and of themselves. However, to dismiss
the evidence of the 1,500-year climate cycle, it is necessary to dismiss not only the known human histories
from the past 2,000 years but also an enormous range and variety of physical evidence found by a huge
body of serious researchers.
 
Last edited:

Joel W.

Just A Jedi
Nov 7, 2005
1,561
0
0
Washington
geeessssusss.. the first line of your link says.."The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human
activities have little to do with it. Instead, the warming seems to be part of a 1,500-year cycle (plus or
minus 500 years) of moderate temperature swings."

were not debating the cause here..but the fact that its getting warmer or colder... thats the topic... thanks for prooving my point...
 

Adjuster

Supramania Contributor
This one says that thousands of years ago, men growing rice started global warming, and averted an ice age. (Nice theory, but I think it's mis-reading of data.)

I put it here to show I'm not closed minded to other ideas, but I do have a pretty critical mind, and this theory has many holes. (Leaving out the sun effect is one, ice core evidence of recient (In the last 400,000 years) weather data does not fit into this "Man" affected weather model. The earth does as it pleases, and we just go along for the ride.

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001838.html
 

Adjuster

Supramania Contributor
OK, I suppose I should change my title to:

"Global warming theory is over" Really it's just a bunch of hooey to get your money, and create fear in the average Joe.

The planet continues on. The sun heats it, or allows it to cool depending on angle and sun intensity.
The galaxy, and our own planet are in a constant state of change. Who's to say the next change is not a terminal one? Or that these normal warming and cooling trends will continue on for millions of years?

Many have surmised that a metor impact, or direct hit from a comet would radically change/influence the atmosphere on Earth. Imagine if the comet was made of mostly ice and trapped gasses like 02, Argon, Methane, CO2 and others? It would have an effect on our weather, but we are powerless to do anything about it. (So why worry about it?)

In the end, limiting our use of hydrocarbon based energy sources, and grousing over who's got more of what, and who's the bigger polluter will not matter one bit since the earth is going to do what it wants, regardless of what we do living on it.
 

Joel W.

Just A Jedi
Nov 7, 2005
1,561
0
0
Washington
i actually agree with you to a point.. not that anyone ever averted or prevented an ice age??? i dunno...but the cause is unknown or unprooven as is, but will you admit that its getting warmer?

i agree, like I have already stated in other posts. the earth will get colder and warmer, everything works in cycles, even if we are unable to survive it, the earth will go on...
 

Adjuster

Supramania Contributor
Ok, I admit it's getting warmer. :) Feel better?

It's going to get cooler however.

And we have nothing to do with it in my opinion, and even if we did, would you not want to stop the next ice age anyway? (Not that we are going to be alive to see it, but you get my point.)

The reason I posted this in the first place was to point out that an excellent book on the subject "State of Fear" is out, and well worth the read. It further points to sources that refute, and actually, lays waste to the current media popular idea that we are causing this warming trend. That is patently BULL SHIT and any scientist worth listening to knows it. I think many are embarrased at the statements they have made in the past while jumping aboard the GW bandwagon, and now as the actual data proves the GW C02 biased theory inccorect, they want to get off this wrong way wagon as soon as possible. (The media will not let go however, and neither will the oranizations who have become rich on the idea that we need to conserve and use less carbon based fuels.)

The more we talk about this, the less power these fools have over our lives, and we can get onto issues that really have some bearing.

Should I buy that GT40, or stick with the 60-1 trim I have now? That is the gripping question I tell you!! :)
 

p5150

ASE and FAA A&P Certified
Mar 31, 2005
1,176
0
36
Central Idaho
Adjuster - Thanks for the meaningful responses. Ill look em over and give a genuine consideration on what you have to say.

Justin- The historical data I was referring to was concentration of CO2 not the temperature. They analyze it by cutting ice cores and analyzing the concentration of the gas samples trapped in the ice.
 

Joel W.

Just A Jedi
Nov 7, 2005
1,561
0
0
Washington
Adjuster said:
Ok, I admit it's getting warmer. :) Feel better?

It's going to get cooler however.

Ohh i dont doubt that it will get colder eventually.. but for now, we are in a warming trend, no matter what ever the cause may be... dig in ppl...

Yes i actually do feel better now.. thank you!!! i must say to you "good job" :icon_bigg It takes a big man to admit that.. i will still pick up a copy when i find one...im sure its a great book. i hope it will get people to think, I think to say that we as a society cant impact the earth on a global scale is completely nieve.. but save that topic for another day...

:bigthumb:
 

Justin

Speakers?
Mar 31, 2005
1,699
0
0
40
Spokane, Wa
p5150 said:
Justin- The historical data I was referring to was concentration of CO2 not the temperature. They analyze it by cutting ice cores and analyzing the concentration of the gas samples trapped in the ice.


That's what I wanted to know... you know me full of questions.

Thanks :)
 

Adjuster

Supramania Contributor
Actually, I have the 60-1 now, and supporting mods to spool it almost too quickly. (It's like being on a stock CT again. almost instant spool, but the power is being limited at 5500rpm, but the tourqe is excellent at over 470lbs to the wheels.)

Mods are 3.24L stroker, ROSS pistons, Pauter rods, ARP head and main studs, Ported head, 1MM OS stainless valves, Coatings on just about everything and of course larger exhaust and custom intake pipes FMIC etc. 550's/Lexus with a Walbro, the E-01 and Eman combo, PLX WB, Omori Gauges and some other nifty tricks like 14" rotors with 6 and 4 piston calipers clamping them. ST Bars, B&G springs, TEMS Tokiko's, but the paint job is still stock.... :)

I think the GT40, with a .95 exhaust side should do the trick. Not too laggy I hope, and I'd need either larger injectors, or to finally go with that FFIM and second fuel rail with a set of 440's in there. (Combined, the 550's and 440's would flow over 900rwhp easy, so plenty of fuel.) Add a second Walbro, run the second rail with the Eman and it should work fine.
 

Joel W.

Just A Jedi
Nov 7, 2005
1,561
0
0
Washington
to be honest i didnt know what your were talking about,, i thought you were joking about buying the gt40 car.. my bad,,
 

Joel W.

Just A Jedi
Nov 7, 2005
1,561
0
0
Washington
GrimJack said:
Hee hee... nope, Adjuster is on the bleeding edge when it comes to Supra performance. :)

ya i have to go and research some of the parts just to know wtf hes talking about, new to me... but im fairly new to supra mods...and turbos...
 

Adjuster

Supramania Contributor
Hey I just read a report prepared by an "investment group." They were trying to get the insurance industry to revise rates and coverages to handle "rapid climate change" and "more distructive hurricanes" as a result of global warming..

Nice when "investment groups" have press releases that get airtime like this.

The media continues to try and sell this stuff, being caught up in it hook line and sinker.

I should make up a totally bogus press release, word it like they want to hear, and then reveal that it's total fiction after they print it.... LOL That would be funny.
 

Joel W.

Just A Jedi
Nov 7, 2005
1,561
0
0
Washington
Adjuster. what about the 13 hurricans just in the atlantic this year?..

“This hurricane season shattered records that have stood for decades—most named storms, most hurricanes and most category five storms. Arguably, it was the most devastating hurricane season the country has experienced in modern times,”

The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season is the busiest on record and extends the active hurricane cycle that began in 1995—a trend likely to continue for years to come. The season included 26 named storms, including 13 hurricanes in which seven were major (Category 3 or higher).

just wondering if its related...
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
Sep 9, 2005
8,897
40
48
U.S.
www.ebay.com
What the lefities did was measure temps in cities, where it will be warmer. Just like a dyno, you can manipulate to get numbers you want. Here is a nice read or two. I will highlight for the left the important facts in this oped.

Global warming is hot air
The Denver Post
December 12, 1997
Section: DENVER AND WEST
Page: B-07
Mike Rosen
The following environmental and public health disasters have something in common: The Cranberry Scare of 1959; Red Dye Number 2, 1976; Tris, 1977; Love Canal, 1978; Coffee and Pancreatic Cancer, 1981; Times Beach, 1982; Alar in Apples, 1989; Benzene in Perrier, 1990; Amalgam Dental Fillings, 1990; Asbestos in Schools, 1993; Cellular Phones and Cancer, 1993. None were actual disasters. All were exaggerated and sensationalized at substantial cost and inconvenience to consumers or some sector of the economy. A special May 1997 report by the American Council on Science and Health highlights these and others in "the 20 greatest unfounded health scares of recent times." It's worthwhile reading. Like the little boy who cried "wolf," environmental alarmists and scaremongers have exhausted their credibility.

Add the Great Global Warming Scare of 1997 to the list. This is more than a dispassionate debate over a questionable theory. To the greenies, global warming dissenters are heretics, challenging their religion. This is a blasphemy on Gaia, the goddess of the earth. It's like saying trees are not our equals.

Global warming hysteria is a convenient vehicle for the radical enviro political agenda. Energy use and economic growth are inherently "bad," as are their byproducts: suburban development, cars, RVs, SUVs, power boats, snowmobiles, materialism in general, and its handmaiden, capitalism. We must simplify our lives and return to nature. If that's the goal, then a false crisis, like global warming, is better than no crisis at all.

How can you help but be skeptical when the global warmers have quotes like these on their record:

Stephen Schneider, Stanford University atmospheric scientist: "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements ... Each of us has to decide what is the right balance between being effective and being honest."

Tim Wirth, outgoing Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs: "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

Vice President Al Gore: "Minor shifts in policy, marginal adjustments in ongoing programs, moderate improvements in laws and regulations and rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change ... are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public's desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary."

Well, I'm one of those who don't believe we should suffer a self-imposed "wrenching transformation of society" unless it's absolutely necessary. I choose to believe that, as we've demonstrated throughout our history, we can solve tomorrow's problems with tomorrow's technology. And that we can do so without sacrificing our economic well-being. Global temperatures are up only a half degree Celsius since 1850 with no evidence of warming over the last 18 years, in spite of growing CO2 levels. This has been explained as a cyclical recovery from the cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" of 1450-1900, and not necessarily related to human burning of fossil fuels. Most of the warming, small as it's been, in the last 150 years occurred before 1940, when man-made CO2 emissions were considerably less than today.

In any event, 96 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions occur naturally; only 4 percent are attributable to human industrial influence. Solar activity alone, dwarfing human influence, could account for all of the recent global warming - which, incidentally, in moderate doses can be of net benefit to the planet.

Contrary to the assertions of the greenies, there is no scientific consensus on the exaggerated claims of global warmers. When members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society were asked in a Gallup poll whether they thought human actions are causing global warming, only 17 percent agreed. Greenpeace likes to brandish the names of scientists who believe that current patterns of energy use will cause catastrophic climate change in the future. What they don't tell you is that their doomsayers represent only a small fraction of those surveyed.

The bottom line is, we don't know nearly enough about global warming at this point to justify any major energy policy shifts. Let's not be stampeded into doing something stupid and self-destructive by the same kind of people who gave us the Alar hoax. Mike Rosen's talk shows airs on 85 KOA, 9 a.m. to noon weekdays.

In any event, 96 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions occur naturally; only 4 percent are attributable to human industrial influence. Solar activity alone, dwarfing human influence, could account for all of the recent global warming - which, incidentally, in moderate doses can be of net benefit to the planet.
The Earths climate/our weather comes from the Sun. Nothing else, as the Lord designed it. If the climate changes, as it did in the past, it isnt from puny humans. It doesnt get much more arrogant than the left to think we can change the Earth.

When Vice President Al Gore recently proclaimed, before a gathering of carefully selected, environmentally correct scientists at the White House, that 1997 was the "warmest year on record," his remarks were heralded across the land in the mainstream print and broadcast media. When a left-wing organization that calls itself the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) secured 1,558 signatures on a fairly tepid statement supporting the "global warming" theory (actually, just calling for more research on the issue), it was also a big news story.

On the other hand, how much have you heard about the "Petition Project," spearheaded by Dr. Arthur Robinson, president and research professor at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, and editor of a science newsletter called "Access to Energy"? If your answer is "nothing," it should confirm your suspicions about the one-sided coverage in the mainstream media that panders to environmental activists and alarmists. As one such alarmist, Steven Schneider, Stanford University atmospheric scientist, put it: "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements ... Each of us has to decide what is the right balance between being effective and being honest." But back to Dr. Robinson's petition. It reads: "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

That statement has so far been endorsed with the signatures of more than 16,000 American scientists, more than 10 times the UCS number, and the list is still growing. You would think this would be worthy of more attention. As would the rebuttal to Al Gore's assertion that 1997 was the warmest year on record. That claim has been echoed by Tom Karl of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who's not telling everything he knows. It's not flatly untrue; it's just cunningly misleading.data available, put 1997 among the coolest years since satellite-based measurements began in 1979 ... the year ranked 7 out of 19, with 1 being thecoldest."

Singer explains that the discrepancy between ground-based temperature readings and atmospheric temperatures is largely attributable to the "urban heat-island" effect. This distorts the temperatures upwards and, in any event, is unrelated to the effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the central premise of global warming theorists. The short-term influence of El Nino, a windfall for enviro-alarmists who will stoop to exploiting anything in the name of their cause, also served to inflatethe

With considerable irony, one is tempted to paraphrase the late, great Sen. Barry Goldwater, the last person liberal greenies would ever want to be associated with. It seems their credo is: "Extremism in the defense of Earth's eco-systems is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of eco-justice is no virtue."
 

Joel W.

Just A Jedi
Nov 7, 2005
1,561
0
0
Washington
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."


thats funny, "green house gasses are good" ;) hahah anyways i think this horse died too cause the topic again wasnt the cause, but if it was even happening at all.
 

Adjuster

Supramania Contributor
Welcome to the party of "anti-global warming" people Nick. :)

You know Al Gore in his book also advocated the destruction and outlawing of all internal combustion engines? Yep, he said they are polluting and we don't need them. (Yes, even the truckish 7MGTE would be banned and sent to the scrapper.)

Good thing he's just a two bit john on the lecture circut right? (Not president of the USA where his totally silly ideas could be forced down our throats.)

Back on topic, there is an excellent article/paper on solar activity being in control of the weather and global climate that I noted in a previous post. You would enjoy reading it as the scientist who wrote it has great data proving that GW is bogus in the extreme.

You guys know that DDT is not bad either? You can add that to the list of "scares" that have caused change for no good basis in scientific fact. (Actually, the banning of DDT has caused many millions of deaths world wide due to insect transmitted diesease that could be prevented with the use of DDT, the most effective insecticide ever developed.)

One more you guys know about, but nobody wants to admit.
R-12 freon is better than R-134a. (The environmentally friendly version.) The R-12 is more effective, and your system in the Supra is built for it. If you put R-134a in there, it's not going to cool as well since the gas used is not as effective as the original.
Why did we ban R-12? Oh, it was poking holes in the Ozone... (Unproven, and rediculus therory, anyone knows that R-12 is heavy, and when released into the atmosphere, it goes to the ground, and seeks out the lowest places to break down. If anything, some form of ground or water pollution might be possible, but not the Ozone layer, thousands of feet up in the atmosphere would be affected....) They have since found that Ozone is a product of lightning, and that the sun has more to do with how much we have than any R-12 or CFC releases man causes.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world continues to use R-12 since it's cheaper, and more effective... Screw us, we are a rich nation, so use the more expensive R-134a in our cars... We can afford it... besides, DuPont makes money either way. Now they just make more money on a less effective product.
 

Joel W.

Just A Jedi
Nov 7, 2005
1,561
0
0
Washington
on ddt, i heard my dad say once that when he was in panima in the army, that they got infested with ticks, and that the military ordered every one to be powdered with DDT, anyways hes still alive hahaha but from what ive read, DDT is bad, i know in chelan they used it alot 20 yrs ago in the orchards, and it killed all the big birds that were eating the fish out of the lake.. even today 20 yrs later the fish are showing up with very hi levels of DDT in them.. but the eagles are coming back slowly..
thats all i got.. hahahha