Council Member
Posts: 1,704 
February 19th, 2008, 06:57 AM
Global Warming? It’s The Coldest Winter In Decades
Well… yes, but… we are in the La Niña ENSO phase and global conditions are expected to be cooler. Likewise poor old Sol just can’t seem to get going with Cycle 24 and that doesn’t make for warm weather either. Moreover "loss" of Arctic sea ice is believed to have had much more to do with Polar wind direction than temperature and this whole "global warming" thing is pretty much a crock anyway. In either case, warming or cooling, the only sane response is to protect people and the only way to do that is through development and wealth-generation. Either way "carbon control" is just plain stupid.
Global Warming? It’s The Coldest Winter In Decades
By Tony Bonnici
NEW evidence has cast doubt on claims that the world’s ice-caps are melting, it emerged last night.
Satellite data shows that concerns over the levels of sea ice may have been premature.
It was feared that the polar caps were vanishing because of the effects of global warming.
But figures from the respected US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that almost all the “lost” ice has come back.
Ice levels which had shrunk from 13million sq km in January 2007 to just four million in October, are almost back to their original levels.
Figures show that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than is usual for the time of year.
The data flies in the face of many current thinkers and will be seized on by climate change sceptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.
Global Warming? It’s The Coldest Winter In Decades
Well… yes, but… we are in the La Niña ENSO phase and global conditions are expected to be cooler. Likewise poor old Sol just can’t seem to get going with Cycle 24 and that doesn’t make for warm weather either. Moreover "loss" of Arctic sea ice is believed to have had much more to do with Polar wind direction than temperature and this whole "global warming" thing is pretty much a crock anyway. In either case, warming or cooling, the only sane response is to protect people and the only way to do that is through development and wealth-generation. Either way "carbon control" is just plain stupid.
Global Warming? It’s The Coldest Winter In Decades
By Tony Bonnici
NEW evidence has cast doubt on claims that the world’s ice-caps are melting, it emerged last night.
Satellite data shows that concerns over the levels of sea ice may have been premature.
It was feared that the polar caps were vanishing because of the effects of global warming.
But figures from the respected US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that almost all the “lost” ice has come back.
Ice levels which had shrunk from 13million sq km in January 2007 to just four million in October, are almost back to their original levels.
Figures show that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than is usual for the time of year.
The data flies in the face of many current thinkers and will be seized on by climate change sceptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.
Council Member
Posts: 1,704
February 20th, 2008, 06:45 AM
Another Global Temp Index Dives in Jan08, this time HadCRUT
19 02 2008
The global surface temperature anomaly data from the UK Hadley Climate Research Unit (Temp anomaly is plotted below) has just been released, and it shows a significant drop in the global temperature anomaly in January 2008, to just 0.034°C, just slightly above zero.
This caps a full year of temperature drop from HadCRUT’s January 2007 value of 0.632°C
above data is HadCRUT3 column 2 which can be found here
description of the HadCRUT3 data file columns is here
The ∆T for the past 12 months is minus 0.595°C which is in line with other respected global temperature metrics that I have reported on in the past two weeks. RSS, UAH, and GISS global temperature sets all show sharp drops in the last year. We are in an extended solar minimum, we have a shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to a cold state, and we are seeing arctic ice extents setting new records and rebounding from the summer melt.While weather is defined as such variability, the fact that so many things are in agreement on a global scale in such a short time span of one year should give us all pause for consideration.
Another Global Temp Index Dives in Jan08, this time HadCRUT
19 02 2008
The global surface temperature anomaly data from the UK Hadley Climate Research Unit (Temp anomaly is plotted below) has just been released, and it shows a significant drop in the global temperature anomaly in January 2008, to just 0.034°C, just slightly above zero.
This caps a full year of temperature drop from HadCRUT’s January 2007 value of 0.632°C
above data is HadCRUT3 column 2 which can be found here
description of the HadCRUT3 data file columns is here
The ∆T for the past 12 months is minus 0.595°C which is in line with other respected global temperature metrics that I have reported on in the past two weeks. RSS, UAH, and GISS global temperature sets all show sharp drops in the last year. We are in an extended solar minimum, we have a shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to a cold state, and we are seeing arctic ice extents setting new records and rebounding from the summer melt.While weather is defined as such variability, the fact that so many things are in agreement on a global scale in such a short time span of one year should give us all pause for consideration.
Electoral Member
Posts: 682
Location: Prince George, BC
Location: Prince George, BC
February 22nd, 2008, 10:57 PM
I'll try and get to the other posts this weekend. Might be difficult as I have a lot going on.
Quoting Tonington
And now I have even less time. I've been asked to do a series of columns for a small local publication and vanity made it too difficult to say no. As to the flooding, it only involved a relatively small area. I and mine have not been affected, and I thank you for your concern. It's all over now for a couple weeks and people have returned to their homes. The residential area that was affected is a semi-rural setting with small, pastoral acreages and every time I've been in the area in spring or summer I've wished I lived there. I just recently changed my mind about that!
I had noticed. I also noticed there was some flooding in your area I think it was. I was wondering if you and yours were keeping dry.
Quoting Tonington
Well, all I can say is I'm impressed. My studies took up considerably more time than that.
I manage to spend time at many places as well as here. I finish my work well before the evening sets in. Sometimes I stop by during the day when I have free time.
Quoting Tonington
I looked for about an hour. I thought it would be easy to find again too, which is why I didn't bother to bookmark it.
Anyways, I was only suggesting that it should be fairly easy to find. You came across it once, so it stands to reason you can come across it again. Especially as the ramifications would be something that I'm sure the blogosphere would jump all over.
But whatever. I'm not much interested in conjecture.
But whatever. I'm not much interested in conjecture.
Quoting Tonington
If you're referring to those who have only read the summary, I agree. Have you read the full reports?
I would suggest they aren't very trustworthy then.
Quoting Tonington
No, actually that's a matter of what political activists can accomplish in this day of internet communication. No internet back then. World-wide activism was a very slow affair back then.
Funny how that works, as we learn more about the world...
Quoting Tonington
It's more spin than science. The claims of authority based on scientific credentials is without basis:
It's part politics, part science. As you say, it's patently obvious that most who comment on it haven't actually read it. Those who suggest otherwise are ignorant, or following ignorant/biased news sources.
Quote:
LINK
For the uninitiated, here is the lowdown: Andrew Dessler is a professor at the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University. He is complaining about a US senate report which listed hundreds of individuals who have been reported in the media during 2007 as speaking against the "scientific consensus" on climate change, claiming that they are scientists. The report naturally challenges the very principle of the consensus, which has given climate policies the authority they have needed to be carried forward. The global warming camp have sought to undermine the value of this new list, by claiming that the scientists lack scientific qualifications, expertise, or moral integrity.
[...]
But Dessler doesn't tell us exactly how we are to measure the qualifications, we just have to take his word for it that the 400 sceptics aren't qualified, but the IPCC scientists are. So it's not simply a consensus, it's a qualified consensus, and he gets to call the qualification. So much for science. So, apparently, the IPCC scientists who represent the consensus are more qualified than their counterparts.
Or, maybe not.
We decided to test Dessler's claim. So we downloaded IPCC WGII's latest report on "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability". There were 380 contributors to the report [...] we focused on the contributors who operate in the UK. Of the 51 UK contributors to the report, there were 5 economists, 3 epidemiologists, 5 who were either zoologists, entomologists, or biologists. 5 worked in civil engineering or risk management / insurance. 7 had specialisms in physical geography (we gave the benefit of the doubt to some academics whose profiles weren't clear about whether they are physical or human geographers). And just 10 have specialisms in geophysics, climate science or modelling, or hydrology. But there were 15 who could only be described as social scientists. If we take the view that economics is a social science, that makes 20 social scientists.
[...]
There were a few professors, but few of them had the profile Dessler gives them. Many of them were in fact, hard to locate to establish just how much better than their counterparts they were. [...]
Among the remainder - most of whom are not professors, but research associates at best, are an assorted bunch, many of whom are better known for their alarmist statements in the mainstream press than they are for their contributions to scientific knowledge - activists in other words, with their own political motivation. And in spite of being reported as "climate scientists", involved in scientific research, also seem to be working within the social sciences, albeit for "climate research" institutions, such as Tyndall. Johanna Wolf, for example, is an IPCC contributor from the University of East Anglia, who works in the department for "development studies". Does that make her a climate scientist? Anna Taylor, of the Stockholm Environment Institute in Oxford has no PhD at all, her research focuses on "stakeholder engagement in adapting to multiple stresses, including climate variability and change, water scarcity, food insecurity and health concerns" - not climate science, and has simply not been alive long enough to join the ranks of the specialists of specialisms that Dessler demands of sceptics. Similarly, Susanne Rupp-Armstrong, listed as a member of Southampton University only appears to have ever contributed to one academic paper. Research Associate at the University of East Anglia, Maureen Agnew does not focus her research on climate science, but on such things as “Public perceptions of unusually warm weather in the UK: impacts, responses and adaptations”, and “Potential impacts of climate change on international tourism.” Katherine Vincent specialising in "Social Capital and Climate change" at the UEA, only began her PhD thesis in October 2003. How can she be cited as a specialist in climate science?
[...]
But Dessler doesn't tell us exactly how we are to measure the qualifications, we just have to take his word for it that the 400 sceptics aren't qualified, but the IPCC scientists are. So it's not simply a consensus, it's a qualified consensus, and he gets to call the qualification. So much for science. So, apparently, the IPCC scientists who represent the consensus are more qualified than their counterparts.
Or, maybe not.
We decided to test Dessler's claim. So we downloaded IPCC WGII's latest report on "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability". There were 380 contributors to the report [...] we focused on the contributors who operate in the UK. Of the 51 UK contributors to the report, there were 5 economists, 3 epidemiologists, 5 who were either zoologists, entomologists, or biologists. 5 worked in civil engineering or risk management / insurance. 7 had specialisms in physical geography (we gave the benefit of the doubt to some academics whose profiles weren't clear about whether they are physical or human geographers). And just 10 have specialisms in geophysics, climate science or modelling, or hydrology. But there were 15 who could only be described as social scientists. If we take the view that economics is a social science, that makes 20 social scientists.
[...]
There were a few professors, but few of them had the profile Dessler gives them. Many of them were in fact, hard to locate to establish just how much better than their counterparts they were. [...]
Among the remainder - most of whom are not professors, but research associates at best, are an assorted bunch, many of whom are better known for their alarmist statements in the mainstream press than they are for their contributions to scientific knowledge - activists in other words, with their own political motivation. And in spite of being reported as "climate scientists", involved in scientific research, also seem to be working within the social sciences, albeit for "climate research" institutions, such as Tyndall. Johanna Wolf, for example, is an IPCC contributor from the University of East Anglia, who works in the department for "development studies". Does that make her a climate scientist? Anna Taylor, of the Stockholm Environment Institute in Oxford has no PhD at all, her research focuses on "stakeholder engagement in adapting to multiple stresses, including climate variability and change, water scarcity, food insecurity and health concerns" - not climate science, and has simply not been alive long enough to join the ranks of the specialists of specialisms that Dessler demands of sceptics. Similarly, Susanne Rupp-Armstrong, listed as a member of Southampton University only appears to have ever contributed to one academic paper. Research Associate at the University of East Anglia, Maureen Agnew does not focus her research on climate science, but on such things as “Public perceptions of unusually warm weather in the UK: impacts, responses and adaptations”, and “Potential impacts of climate change on international tourism.” Katherine Vincent specialising in "Social Capital and Climate change" at the UEA, only began her PhD thesis in October 2003. How can she be cited as a specialist in climate science?
Quoting Tonington
It wasn't intended to be a serious example of an explanation.
And I didn't say you did. I said I've never heard of such an explanation.
Quoting Tonington
Looks like we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
And I'm telling you that there is no evidence it is upon us, so looking at long time scales and applying them to the present is analogous to the misquoted reports of an oncoming ice age in the 70's.
Quoting Tonington
We don't live according to a geological time scale, but we do live in one. It is impossible not to. An epoch is a specific portion of time and has its own significance, but the geologic time scale is merely a different measure from a human time scale, much as an hour is a different measure than a second. The second is still within the hour.
We do not live in a geologic time scale. We live within a specific geological epoch. But we do not live in a geologic time scale. The fossil fuels we're burning were created by geologic forces, and they aren't being replaced as we use them.
Quoting Tonington
No.
Can you recognize the factors which brought about shifts in periodicity in the past?
Quoting Tonington
I don't.
How do you know that it won't revert to a longer period?
Quoting Tonington
Correct. However, it is illogical to assume that the most recent pattern will not repeat when you have no evidence of any factors about to cause change. The only logical assumption is that the pattern will repeat. It ignore that and assume it will not is no more than wishful thinking.
It's not possible to know that right now.
I'll try and get to the other posts this weekend. Might be difficult as I have a lot going on.
Council Member
Posts: 1,704
February 25th, 2008, 05:32 AM
Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age
Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, February 25, 2008
Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.
The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average."
China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.
There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.
In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.
And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.
The ice is back.
Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.
OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.
But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.
And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma.
According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.
"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.
But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.
Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats."
He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.
The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.
It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.
Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age
Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, February 25, 2008
Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.
The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average."
China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.
There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.
In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.
And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.
The ice is back.
Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.
OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.
But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.
And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma.
According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.
"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.
But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.
Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats."
He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.
The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.
It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.
Council Member
Posts: 1,704
March 4th, 2008, 06:40 AM
THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM - Dr Vincent Gray
PowerPoint presentation by Dr Gray at International Conference on Climate Change, New York, 3 March, 2008
Alternatively we have converted it to .pdf (717kb) here: The Global Warming Scam
THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM - Dr Vincent Gray
PowerPoint presentation by Dr Gray at International Conference on Climate Change, New York, 3 March, 2008
Alternatively we have converted it to .pdf (717kb) here: The Global Warming Scam
March 4th, 2008, 10:53 AM
No signs of an ice age on the horizon.
Quoting Extrafire
No, a second and an hour are units of time. Geologic time scales of course are made up of units of time, but they aren't differentiated by set time periods, they are unequal in their distribution of time. They are separated by events, mostly the arrival of new fossil assemblages. The time scales are millions of years and more, and we haven't been here more than 200,000 years. Even less time as recorded history. Saying we live in a geologic scale is meaningless, as geologic scales create sedimentary rock, fossilize animals, create petroleum and other minerals. They aren't being replaced as we use them.
We don't live according to a geological time scale, but we do live in one. It is impossible not to. An epoch is a specific portion of time and has its own significance, but the geologic time scale is merely a different measure from a human time scale, much as an hour is a different measure than a second. The second is still within the hour.
Quote:
Look, I'm not saying there will never be an ice age, I'm saying there is no evidence that we're on the cusp of anything close to what would be considered an ice age. The ice sheets and glaciers are still in retreat, some show signs of speeding up, the Antarctic sheet is behaving exactly as was predicted by some of the very first climate models back in 1981, and the multi-year ice in the Arctic was the smallest ever last summer. Of course it grows back in the winter, that's what happens, but it isn't replacing the thick multi-year ice. Species are progressing Northward in our hemisphere, not south.
No.I don't.Correct. However, it is illogical to assume that the most recent pattern will not repeat when you have no evidence of any factors about to cause change. The only logical assumption is that the pattern will repeat. It ignore that and assume it will not is no more than wishful thinking.
No signs of an ice age on the horizon.
March 7th, 2008, 03:06 PM
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...r20071213.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...r20071213.html
Council Member
Posts: 1,704
March 8th, 2008, 06:59 AM
Thank-you. Which one should I believe? Here's another one I just found. http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/01/20...oldest-in.html
Thank-you. Which one should I believe? Here's another one I just found. http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/01/20...oldest-in.html
Newbie
Posts: 14
March 8th, 2008, 09:15 AM
Man, I've written pages about this already. So, I'll be quick.
Thousands of reputable scientists the world over versus a weatherman.
I'm not sure why one would feel that Oil Companies need their help, but honestly, mankind's contribution to global warming has been proven. We are reaping what we sow. I'm not going to list any sources just as I'm not going to try to convince you that the Earth revolves around the Sun. There's enough on the internet validating Global Warming. And then, of course, there's the few macho, renegade loudmouth skeptics
Global warming skeptics will hear one or two things, and then just to have an opinion, loudly and with much brashness utter those two things they've read just to bolster their ego.
If you care to step away from your partisanship, do some reading on the other side. Watch an "Inconvenient Truth" and "the Denial Machine"
The media has to maintain it's sense at best of maintaing balance. So, when some renegade weatherman wants a soundbite claiming that Global Warmingis a farce (and that he comes from the Planet Kludo), they'll give it to him.
But when thousands (literally) of scientists, the world over come to agree that
(i)we are causing, and can reverse global warming
(ii)the effects of global warming, understanding will be disastrous
Even you, my friend, I'm sure can be level headed enough to weigh the intellectual balance....
Thousands of reputable scientists the world over versus a weatherman
Man, I've written pages about this already. So, I'll be quick.
Thousands of reputable scientists the world over versus a weatherman.
I'm not sure why one would feel that Oil Companies need their help, but honestly, mankind's contribution to global warming has been proven. We are reaping what we sow. I'm not going to list any sources just as I'm not going to try to convince you that the Earth revolves around the Sun. There's enough on the internet validating Global Warming. And then, of course, there's the few macho, renegade loudmouth skeptics
Global warming skeptics will hear one or two things, and then just to have an opinion, loudly and with much brashness utter those two things they've read just to bolster their ego.
If you care to step away from your partisanship, do some reading on the other side. Watch an "Inconvenient Truth" and "the Denial Machine"
The media has to maintain it's sense at best of maintaing balance. So, when some renegade weatherman wants a soundbite claiming that Global Warmingis a farce (and that he comes from the Planet Kludo), they'll give it to him.
But when thousands (literally) of scientists, the world over come to agree that
(i)we are causing, and can reverse global warming
(ii)the effects of global warming, understanding will be disastrous
Even you, my friend, I'm sure can be level headed enough to weigh the intellectual balance....
Thousands of reputable scientists the world over versus a weatherman
Council Member
Posts: 1,704
March 8th, 2008, 02:15 PM
Quoting smac972
Some disagree. http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/C...nceProgram.pdf
Thousands of reputable scientists the world over versus a weatherman.
I'm not sure why one would feel that Oil Companies need their help, but honestly, mankind's contribution to global warming has been proven. We are reaping what we sow. I'm not going to list any sources just as I'm not going to try to convince you that the Earth revolves around the Sun. There's enough on the internet validating Global Warming. And then, of course, there's the few macho, renegade loudmouth skeptics
Global warming skeptics will hear one or two things, and then just to have an opinion, loudly and with much brashness utter those two things they've read just to bolster their ego.
If you care to step away from your partisanship, do some reading on the other side. Watch an "Inconvenient Truth" and "the Denial Machine"
The media has to maintain it's sense at best of maintaing balance. So, when some renegade weatherman wants a soundbite claiming that Global Warmingis a farce (and that he comes from the Planet Kludo), they'll give it to him.
But when thousands (literally) of scientists, the world over come to agree that
(i)we are causing, and can reverse global warming
(ii)the effects of global warming, understanding will be disastrous
Even you, my friend, I'm sure can be level headed enough to weigh the intellectual balance....
Thousands of reputable scientists the world over versus a weatherman
I'm not sure why one would feel that Oil Companies need their help, but honestly, mankind's contribution to global warming has been proven. We are reaping what we sow. I'm not going to list any sources just as I'm not going to try to convince you that the Earth revolves around the Sun. There's enough on the internet validating Global Warming. And then, of course, there's the few macho, renegade loudmouth skeptics
Global warming skeptics will hear one or two things, and then just to have an opinion, loudly and with much brashness utter those two things they've read just to bolster their ego.
If you care to step away from your partisanship, do some reading on the other side. Watch an "Inconvenient Truth" and "the Denial Machine"
The media has to maintain it's sense at best of maintaing balance. So, when some renegade weatherman wants a soundbite claiming that Global Warmingis a farce (and that he comes from the Planet Kludo), they'll give it to him.
But when thousands (literally) of scientists, the world over come to agree that
(i)we are causing, and can reverse global warming
(ii)the effects of global warming, understanding will be disastrous
Even you, my friend, I'm sure can be level headed enough to weigh the intellectual balance....
Thousands of reputable scientists the world over versus a weatherman
March 8th, 2008, 02:27 PM
And some of them say the climate is warming, and some of them say carbon dioxide is part of the cause, and some of them think no warming at all from carbon dioxide, and some of them say there is no warming, and some of them think that any money spent on mitigation will be fruitless. The common thread? They all think we should spend no money at all on fixing the problem, indeed they are not of one mind on if there is a problem. There certainly is a weak consensus on their part. So the one common opinion by them is not a scientific position, but a political position. Speaks volumes...
And some of them say the climate is warming, and some of them say carbon dioxide is part of the cause, and some of them think no warming at all from carbon dioxide, and some of them say there is no warming, and some of them think that any money spent on mitigation will be fruitless. The common thread? They all think we should spend no money at all on fixing the problem, indeed they are not of one mind on if there is a problem. There certainly is a weak consensus on their part. So the one common opinion by them is not a scientific position, but a political position. Speaks volumes...
