Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't know Ed Krug, but if he's denying the truth of scientific consensus on Global Warming, then you're wasting your time when you read him.
LOL..... maybe you should actually read what I post before commenting on it. What you read one sentence you didn't like then decide that I'm a nitwit? Half the trouble with this issue is people such as yourself that won't even consider that you may be wrong. When you refuse to even look at or consider what some one else has posted there is really no point in discussing the issue.
Here I'll post another snippet, it's very interesting read:
Quote:
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/epavskrug.html (broken link)
Some people don't like what Edward Krug has to say about acid rain. That was apparent when he spoke at a seminar on the subject last April in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Krug, a soil scientist who had helped conduct a 10-year federal study of acid rain, spoke with some expertise. He told his audience that he and his fellow researchers on the National Acid Rain Precipitation Assessment Project had determined that acid rain was an environmental nuisance, not a catastrophe.
It was a message that environmentalists didn't want to hear. One woman hissed at him, "You need to take a reality check."
Unfortunately for Krug, she isn't the only one who doesn't like his ideas. Congress ignored NAPAP's findings, and when Krug tried to point out that the federal government is forcing utilities to spend billions of dollars to solve a problem that doesn't exist, a federal agency did everything in its power to keep the media from listening to him. Krug's research has upset the plans of some of Washington's most powerful bureaucrats, and they aren't happy. Because of them, the 44-year-old Krug has experienced numerous reality checks.
Krug is respected in his field. His mentor, John Tedrow, a world-renowned soil scientist at Rutgers University, says that Krug borders "on genius." Krug has developed an internationally accepted theory on lake acidity. He has published in prestigious scientific journals. He organized the Acid Rain Symposium at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He has served as an adviser to two directors of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. But today, because of politics, he cannot find work in his field.
After Krug appeared on 60 Minutes to talk about what his research for NAPAP revealed about the relationship between acid rain and acidic lakes, the EPA branded him a scientist of "limited credibility," called his statements "outlandish," and said he was "on the fringes of environmental science." The Agency, under pressure, later recanted those accusations.
After he published an internationally praised acid-rain assessment, the EPA organized a scathing secret review that other scientists called a "sham." The producer of the 60 Minutes broadcast says the EPA attempted to discredit Krug while CBS was preparing the story. The EPA denied the charges.
Why did this happen? "He was," a colleague says, "a bit immature in the area of political science."
So I'll ask a again if you're a scientist and know the story of Ed Krug would you be willing to stick your neck out?
"He's smart. He's an effective debater. No wonder the Steve Schneiders and Al Gores of the world don't want you to hear from him. It's easier to call someone a shill and accuse him of corruption than to debate him on the merits."
I believe actually being there is the major problem, if my understanding is correct merely touching it can have bad consequences. Even if you're trying to be careful and do all the right things you're inevitably going to cause damage.
It sure sounds like these divers are actually inflicting pain to these living creatures. And all for their own enjoyment.
I beg to differ. If glaciers melting much higher above average, as well as Katrina-sized hurricanes aren't enough to tell you global warming is real, I don't know what will.
as well as Katrina-sized hurricanes aren't enough to tell you global warming is real, I don't know what will.
Storms of that size have been hitting that area forever, Camille being the last one.
Quote:
Hurricane Camille was the third and strongest tropical cyclone and second hurricane during the 1969 Atlantic hurricane season. The second of three catastrophic-level Category 5hurricanes to make landfall in the United States during the 20th century, which it did near the mouth of the Mississippi River on the night of August 17, Camille was the only Atlantic hurricane to exhibit officially recorded sustained wind speeds of at least 190 miles per hour (310 km/h) until Allen equalled that number in 1980, and the only Atlantic hurricane in recorded history to make landfall at or above such intensity.
The often quoted thing about hurricanes increasing in intensity is baseless and actually a point of contention that cause one scientist on the IPCC panel to resign because of the way it was being presented by another scientist.
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane
section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a
press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to
warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense
hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The
result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly
connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by
anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and
reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is
apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in
such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media
sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global
warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press
conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting
hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that
press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor
were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current
research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable,
long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones,
either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and
2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the
hurricane record.
Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).
I beg to differ. If glaciers melting much higher above average, as well as Katrina-sized hurricanes aren't enough to tell you global warming is real, I don't know what will.
Average? What is average. An average is assuming that the climate is static, which is false. Second, you are looking at a window of 30-100 years. Man's narcissistic downfall. Climate operates on a scale of 1000-10000 years. You think Katrina was the largest hurricane in the last 10000 years? Hell it wasn't the largest one in the last 2 years. We just we're prepared to hold back nature when we live below sea level.
Well it's actually cooling in some parts of the world which shows how relevant the whole global warming thing is.
Global average temperatures have decreased over the last 10 years or so and if the trend for this year continues through the winter get your check book out if you live in the north cause it's going to be cold.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
