It must be "Global Warming"

by Warlock 93 Replies latest social current

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    Quote:

    "They really don't know. They can only ASSUME.

    The same thing with the Earth."

    Do you really think that the ability to study climate change on Pluto is comparable to the ability to study climate change on earth?

    Earths climate is incredibly complex, but one part of climate change is not really all that complex: if you put on a blanket, you're going to get warmer. C02 and other gases form a "blanket" around the earth. We are adding to that C02 and other gasses, and at an alarming rate. Hence comes at least some global warming.

  • Warlock
    Warlock

    To point to cooler than average temps in a normally warm area, and then criticize global warming betrays a true ignorance of what global warming actually does. It's on the level of Rush Limbaugh intelligence. Keep listening to Rush dude, I'll pay attention to what leading scientists are saying. (Unlike Mr. Limbaugh, they actually have college degrees).
    First of all, answer my last post. Second of all I don't listen to Rush and I never will. Third of all I listen to someone who has more education than all the talk show hosts combined, but he has nothing to do with it. He just validates my opinion. If you're such a smart guy, then maybe you can find him. It looks like you need him. Warlock

  • Warlock
    Warlock

    CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHICH GROUP OF SCIENTISTS HAS ALL OF THE EARTHS TEMPERATURE RECORDS IN RECORDED HISTORY? CAN ANYONE SAY, FOR A FACT, THAT THE EARTH HAS NEVER EXPERIENCED "GLOBAL WARMING" IN THE PAST? NO THEY CANNOT!

    How about pre-recorded history?

    How about before man walked the earth?

    ANSWERS PLEASE.

    Warlock

  • SWALKER
    SWALKER

    A new report on global warming is about to be released in Feb:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2813490&page=1

    Note...this is reviewed by over 2000 scientists in over 154 countries. (IPCC)

    Swalker

  • Warlock
    Warlock

    SWALKER,

    The U.N.????????

    If I want studies sponsored by, and predictions made by the U.N. I'll go to my Watchtower Library.

    Give me a break.

    Warlock

  • SWALKER
    SWALKER

    I saw this on ABC news and thought I'd post it. I'm sure when the report comes out it will get a lot of review from even more scientists not involved in the program. Here's an idea on who makes up the IPCC:

    2,000 Scientists, 154 Countries Weigh In

    The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issues major reports about every five years. They are compiled — and exhaustively reviewed — by over 2,000 scientists and the governments of 154 countries. The last report was issued in 2001.

    IPCC reports represent the current state of the scientific consensus on global warming. From 1990 to today, the reports have painted an increasingly clear picture of the human contribution to the problem.

    Details of this "Working Group I: Summary for Policy Makers" report have been leaking out through various news media over the past few days.

    Two more working groups' reports, due out in April and May, will assess global warming's impacts, possible adaptations to them and options for mitigating future extreme warming.

    Swalker

  • Madame Quixote
    Madame Quixote

    Science Panel Calls Global Warming ‘Unequivocal’

    alt

    Dan Crosbie/Canadian Ice Service

    Polar bears on chunks of glacial ice in the Bering Sea in 2004. Much higher temperatures are forecast for the Arctic, climate scientists say.

    By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL and ANDREW C. REVKIN Published: February 3, 2007

    PARIS, Feb. 2 — In a grim and powerful assessment of the future of the planet, the leading international network of climate scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is “unequivocal” and that human activity is the main driver, “very likely” causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950.

    Timeline In its fourth assessment of global warming, released Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used its strongest language yet in drawing a link between human activity and recent warming. Enlarge This Image Reuters.

    alt

    A worker at an industrial-residue disposal site in Hanshou County in central China Friday. A climate panel has concluded that human industrial activity is “very likely” driving global temperature rises.

    They said the world was in for centuries of climbing temperatures, rising seas and shifting weather patterns — unavoidable results of the buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.

    But their report, released here on Friday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said warming and its harmful consequences could be substantially blunted by prompt action.

    While the report provided scant new evidence of a climate apocalypse now, and while it expressly avoided recommending courses of action, officials from the United Nations agencies that created the panel in 1988 said it spoke of the urgent need to limit looming and momentous risks.

    “In our daily lives we all respond urgently to dangers that are much less likely than climate change to affect the future of our children,” said Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Program, which administers the panel along with the World Meteorological Organization.

    “Feb. 2 will be remembered as the date when uncertainty was removed as to whether humans had anything to do with climate change on this planet,” he went on. “The evidence is on the table.”

    The report is the panel’s fourth assessment since 1990 on the causes and consequences of climate change, but it is the first in which the group asserts with near certainty — more than 90 percent confidence — that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities have been the main causes of warming in the past half century.

    In its last report, in 2001, the panel, consisting of hundreds of scientists and reviewers, said the confidence level for its projections was “likely,” or 66 to 90 percent. That level has now been raised to “very likely,” better than 90 percent. Both reports are online at www.ipcc.ch.

    The Bush administration, which until recently avoided directly accepting that humans were warming the planet in potentially harmful ways, embraced the findings, which had been approved by representatives from the United States and 112 other countries on Thursday night.

    Administration officials asserted Friday that the United States had played a leading role in studying and combating climate change, in part by an investment of an average of almost $5 billion a year for the past six years in research and tax incentives for new technologies.

    At the same time, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman rejected the idea of unilateral limits on emissions. “We are a small contributor to the overall, when you look at the rest of the world, so it’s really got to be a global solution,” he said.

    The United States, with about 5 percent of the world’s population, contributes about a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions, more than any other country.

    Democratic lawmakers quickly fired off a round of news releases using the report to bolster a fresh flock of proposed bills aimed at cutting emissions of greenhouse gases. Senator James M. Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who has called the idea of dangerous human-driven warming a hoax, issued a news release headed “Corruption of Science” that rejected the report as “a political document.”

    The new report says the global climate is likely to warm 3.5 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit if carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere reach twice the levels of 1750, before the Industrial Revolution.

    Many energy and environment experts see such a doubling, or worse, as a foregone conclusion after 2050 unless there is a prompt and sustained shift away from the 20th-century pattern of unfettered burning of coal and oil, the main sources of carbon dioxide, and an aggressive expansion of nonpolluting sources of energy.

    And the report says there is a more than a 1-in-10 chance of much greater warming, a risk that many experts say is far too high to ignore.

    Even a level of warming that falls in the middle of the group’s range of projections would be likely to cause significant stress to ecosystems, according to many climate experts and biologists. And it would alter longstanding climate patterns that shape water supplies and agricultural production.

    Moreover, the warming has set in motion a rise in global sea levels, the report says. It forecasts a rise of 7 to 23 inches by 2100 and concludes that seas will continue to rise for at least 1,000 years to come. By comparison, seas rose about 6 to 9 inches in the 20th century.

    John P. Holdren, an energy and climate expert at Harvard, said the report “powerfully underscores the need for a massive effort to slow the pace of global climatic disruption before intolerable consequences become inevitable.”

    Elisabeth Rosenthal reported from Paris, and Andrew C. Revkin from New York. Felicity Barringer contributed reporting from Washington.

  • SWALKER
    SWALKER

    In case anyone missed it:

    OSLO, Norway (AP) - Former Vice President Al Gore has been nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his wide-reaching efforts to draw the world's attention to the dangers of global warming, a Norwegian lawmaker said Thursday.

    "A prerequisite for winning the Nobel Peace Prize is making a difference, and Al Gore has made a difference," Conservative Member of Parliament Boerge Brende, a former minister of environment and then of trade, told The Associated Press.

    http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=6023634&nav=menu59_9_2_5

    Swalker

  • Warlock
    Warlock


    Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide

    Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

    By Timothy Ball

    Monday, February 5, 2007

    Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

    What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

    Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

    No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

    Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

    I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

    Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

    No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

    I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

    In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

    Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

    I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

    Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

    I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

    As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

    Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

    Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

    I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

    Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at [email protected]

  • avidbiblereader
    avidbiblereader

    Good article MadameQuiote, I agree with you, and so much of what I read is also what I see, it is happening and one can continue to turn a blind eye to it but I would roll up my pant legs as I am going blind.

    abr

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit