Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’


gopher
+1
#91
Bush: biggest scam artist in history.

But let's criticize Gore so that people can get distracted from the war while the wealthy profit from it.
 
Cobalt_Kid
#92
Al Gore never took a vow of poverty, if Bush and Cheney can get wealthy from oil and war then Gore can do as he pleases as he works to build an altrnative to the sick and tired economic structure that is killing the planet.
 
Zzarchov
#93
Extrafire: You just claimed the medieval period was 7000 years ago. Sorry, You lose.

Side note: If you think we couldn't trigger an Ice age, you are also wrong (in fact its a side effect of some things we could do, such as an atomic exchange)

I considered quoting and refuting your points, but either someone has any knowledge in history and just knows you are wrong flat out, or they don't and don't care either.

Believe what you want. Just try and keep it to one thing, know that medieval warming is not the same thing as warm periods much earlier in world history, nor are they going to be on the same level.
 
Walter
#94
What About the Poles?
Tuesday November 13, 2007
The global warming alarmists are at it again, shrieking about “ice melt at the Poles.”
“The relentless grip of the Arctic Ocean that defied man for centuries is melting away,” warned Doug Struck in the Washington Post. “The sea ice reaches only half as far as it did 50 years ago. In the summer of 2006, it shrank to a record low. This summer, the ice pulled back even more, by an area nearly the size of Alaska.”
NASA’s James Hansen keeps claiming that CO2 is “pushing the climate past its tipping point.”
British banks are sending “volunteers” to the Arctic to see for themselves the loss of sea ice, and to view the “endangered” polar bears—whose numbers have tripled in recent years.
Ho hum. Just another day at the scare factory.

Point one: We’ve known for 20 years about the earth’s moderate, natural 1,500-year climate cycle, which we discovered in the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores. The ice shows seven previous global warmings in the past 12,000 years. Two of these—8,000 years ago and 5,000 years ago—were, for many centuries, substantially warmer than today. The Greenland and Antarctic ice caps didn’t melt.

Point two: This can’t be global warming. 1) The Arctic was also warm in the 1920s; the Russians say it happens every 70 years or so. 2) The Antarctic Ice is now at a modern high. The Antarctic has been cooling since the 1960s, according to Peter Doran’s 2002 paper in Nature. Thanks to warming’s additional snowfall, the East Antarctic ice cap is currently gaining about 45 billion tons of ice per year.

Neels Reeh of the University of Denmark says that another 1 degree C of warming would melt enough Greenland ice to raise sea levels perhaps half an inch per year—but added ice in the Antarctic would lower sea level almost that much. The net increase has been six inches per century, and it isn’t expected to change.

Why not? Cliff Ollier, well-known geoscientist from the University of Western Australia, writes to say that Hansen is just a climate modeler who doesn’t understand either ice caps or their melting. He thinks the whole ice cap melting thing is a figment of the climate modelers’ computerized imaginations, conjured up to ensure that we’re properly frightened of global warming. Otherwise, the grant money might dry up.

If the media only reported facts, who would be frightened about sea levels rising at the current rate of six inches per century? Who’d be frightened by the earth warming just two-tenths of a degree C over the past 70- years?

Ice caps don’t melt from the surface down, they melt only at the edges. Once the edges are melted, further ice loss depends on the uphill weight of the ice built up over previous centuries. The ice flows—reluctantly because it’s so cold—on the warmer ice at its base, with the upper, brittle ice carried downhill by its own weight. When a chunk of ice reaches the edge of the cap it falls off—and the AP writes a news story. That’s neither melting nor collapse.

The Greenland ice cap is 2–3 kilometers deep and much of its ice lies inside a basin that won’t slide off. Its undisturbed ice dates back at least 105,000 years. The temperatures over the ice are well below freezing, at about -30 degrees C in the north, and -20 degrees C in the south.

The Antarctic ice cores date back more than 760,000 years, in the coldest place on earth. The lowest recorded temperature was -89 C at Vostok in 1983. The highest Vostok temperature taken was -19 C in 1992—still far below freezing.

By the way, even the southernmost polar bear population is doing fine in the Davis Strait, with higher numbers and some of the largest bears yet seen.
 
The Listener
#95
Locutus, While I have no proof to substantiate your claim, I am of the same opinion as you. I do not trust Al Gore! Then he says "the debate is over". When did it even begin. Since he will not debate anyone or go on talk shows that will challenge him for his facts, it gives anyone more reason to not trust his opinions. His agenda is POWER and since he was denied the Presidency, this "scam" is his ticket (he thinks) to an even wider base of "useful idiots" to boss around and laud over.
 
EagleSmack
#96
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

And Gore bashing is another way to deflect criticism against the business as usual approach and the lack of proof against the theory. It's an ad hominem attack, not at all an indictment of the theory. A reason not to invest in Gore's company, but that is all.

There is all kinds of proof. You just will not listen to it because you have invested yourself in the theory that the sky is falling. Your savoir Al Gore has fooled you.
 
EagleSmack
#97
Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_Kid View Post

Al Gore never took a vow of poverty, if Bush and Cheney can get wealthy from oil and war then Gore can do as he pleases as he works to build an altrnative to the sick and tired economic structure that is killing the planet.

No no no. You are not getting off that easy. Al Gore IS killing the planet and making millions from doing it. GW advocates are on the ropes and they know. So what shall they do?

Blame Cheney and Bush...what else is there to do!


Strip mining, private planes, three houses, mansions... but wait Al... aren't we in a "planetary emergency"?
 
Cobalt_Kid
#98
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

No no no. You are not getting off that easy. Al Gore IS killing the planet and making millions from doing it. GW advocates are on the ropes and they know. So what shall they do?

Blame Cheney and Bush...what else is there to do!


Strip mining, private planes, three houses, mansions... but wait Al... aren't we in a "planetary emergency"?

Give me a break, the fossil fuel industry introduces millions of barrels of oil, millions of litres of natural gas and thousands of tons of coal into the environment each day. Al Gores level of consumption is nothing remarkable in a country with many people who have a level of wealth far above his. I don't hear you complaining about the palace Bill Gates lives in. There's a log home building company not far from where I live and a few years ago I watched in wonder as they built a 115,000 square foot log house that was going to be an addition for a 25,000 square foot home already in place. It was all heading south to some dot com billionaire. Al Gore shows more responsibility than most people in his position and unless you're advocating communism get off your high horse about his right to what he has.
 
mrmom2
#99
[quote=EagleSmack;903568]No no no. You are not getting off that easy. Al Gore IS killing the planet and making millions from doing it. GW advocates are on the ropes and they know. So what shall they do?

Blame Cheney and Bush...what else is there to do!


quote]
Funy thing is Bush's house is more GW friendly than the great preacher Gores

recently saw Al Gore�s �An Inconvenient Truth�. It was exactly what I expected, like getting the Big Mac you expect when you go to Mac Donald�s. It is an American mainstream film that serves the same political purpose as any Hollywood blockbuster � to neutralize political awareness and response.

Yes, the atmospheric trace gas CO2 has the highest concentration it has had in the last million years. Yes, this is due to fossil fuel burning. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Yes, there have been intense weather events in recent years and yes glaciers are melting.

Therefore, let us abstract away the greatest assault on the planet and its people in the history of humanity, namely finance-driven corporate devastation and exploitation backed by military might, and change our light bulbs to the energy saving kind!

Our moral responsibility extends far beyond checking out Al Gore�s web site, and has relatively little to do with most lifestyle choices; including vegetarianism, fair trade purchases, renewable consumer choices, not owning a car, etc. Our responsibilities instead include getting informed, and demanding moral accountability of all those who should serve people (including the corporations and private banks).

To demand is to put yourself out there. To demand is to show what you stand for. To demand is to risk. We must risk as much as will make us as effective as possible in producing justice.

Economic, human, and animal justice brings economic sustainability which in turn is based on renewable practices. Recognizing the basic rights of native people automatically moderates resource extraction and preserves natural habitats. Not permitting imperialist wars and interventions automatically quenches nation-scale exploitation. True democratic control over monetary policy goes a long way in removing debt-based extortion. Etc.

Concentrated power and capital are not about to give up their practices or their imperative for profit. Resistance to the insane return-on-investments hydra that inhabits our planet is our main responsibility if we are concerned about future generations. It�s time to declare bankruptcy and start again, in collaboration, without debt or interest.

One cannot control a monster by asking it not to **** as much. The monster is the problem, not the fact that it ****s.

In Al Gore�s masterpiece there is not a single questioning at the root. A sanitized problem of atmospheric chemistry is used to funnel attention into lifestyle choices or filling out feedback forms for the monster�s suggestion box.

My point is that global warming is part of our mainstream mental environment because it does not threaten power. Wars are being fought to secure fossil fuel exploitation and transportation profits. It is completely na�ve to think that world politics based on atmospheric chemistry and computer modelling projection arguments will lead to an effective cap on fossil fuel burning.

As a related example, the so-called �ozone victory� was a corporate ploy to eliminate CFCs just as US corporation CFC patents were running out, thereby ensuring that the replacement US products with new patent protection would have a world market.

The acid rain problem of the 70s was another such global catastrophe myth. Agriculture and forestry combined with the cottage industry and sports fishing crippled boreal forest lakes and their ecosystems, not acid rain. Nor did acid rain destroy the boreal forest � blame corporate clear cutting for that. More sulphides are being emitted by coal-burning power plants than ever before and the US has enough coal reserves to keep it in energy for the next 1000 years. SO2 is not the problem, corporate and financial power is. Pollution is a symptom, as are exploitation and oppression.

We need to see straight before we can hope to take more democratic control over our resources. The �sanitised global problem abstraction� (e.g., world overpopulation as a statistician�s dreamland) is a red herring. It deflects attention away from the root causes and neutralises effective action based in direct confrontation at the source.



by Prof. Denis Rancourt
University of Ottawa, Canada
 
EagleSmack
#100
Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_Kid View Post

Give me a break, the fossil fuel industry introduces millions of barrels of oil, millions of litres of natural gas and thousands of tons of coal into the environment each day. Al Gores level of consumption is nothing remarkable in a country with many people who have a level of wealth far above his. I don't hear you complaining about the palace Bill Gates lives in. There's a log home building company not far from where I live and a few years ago I watched in wonder as they built a 115,000 square foot log house that was going to be an addition for a 25,000 square foot home already in place. It was all heading south to some dot com billionaire. Al Gore shows more responsibility than most people in his position and unless you're advocating communism get off your high horse about his right to what he has.

Yes I do not doubt that they do produce that much. It is the consumption of people like Al Gore that causes that. Al Gore has shown no responsibility whatsoever...none! He still runs three mansions, drives in SUV laden motorcades, takes private jets around the world to speak about GW, allows Zinc Mining on his lands, has swindled millions into buying carbon credits in his carbon credit company. What did he do? Change the light bulbs? He still uses gas operated torches every night at his Tennessee mansion. They ring his sprawling back yard.


Bill Gates? Are you high? Where did that come from?


I attack ALL who say conserve and do not themselves. The Hollywood elite at the Oscars last year who, because of Al Gore recieved a free years worth of carbon credits that cost nothing more than it took to print the paper because it was his company that wrote it off. All of these GW Crusaders/Scammers who collect hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars from suckers who bought into the greatest scam ever.


I am not advocating communism... I am advocating shared responsibility to those who preach GW. I have not seen it.
 
coldstream
#101
On ABC 20/20 a couple of weeks ago I saw the first balanced look at the science behind the GW fraud in a long while. It essentially shows something that is well known climatological and earth sciences.. the Carbon content of the atmosphere has gone up AFTER a warming period.. not before. What has not been largely broadcast is that this completely turns the climate computer models that are the basis of the theory to utter RUBBISH.. inverting absolutely the purported cause and effects.

Scientists don't speak out because they know that Global Warming is part of the scientific Orthodoxy now.. Going against it , even with persuasive evidence that it is a purely political construct.. deeply emmeshed the global trading juggernaut though Kyoto's 'carbon credits'.. that is laying waste to the productive economy of the world.. would put your career at imminent risk.

Global Warming relies of fear mongering.. not on reason. It is simply not happening. What we see in climate fluctuations are completely natural events that have been part of earth's ecological history since its creation.. which any HONEST scientist will admit, they do not know the cause of, but is without doubt the most complex and little understood system on the planet.
Last edited by coldstream; Nov 14th, 2007 at 02:47 PM..
 
Tonington
#102
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

There is all kinds of proof. You just will not listen to it because you have invested yourself in the theory that the sky is falling. Your savoir Al Gore has fooled you.

Grow up EagleSmack. Go to the thread on Gore winning the Nobel prize to see my opinion. He's not my savior. If you think I get my info from Gore, perhaps that's a reflection of your own information gathering methods on this subject.

I prefer to base my opinion on papers with footnotes and references, not red herrings and other logical fallacies.

Anyone who claims to follow the science is one who changes their opinion based on the available and ever changing observable facts. The climate community has evolved. The skeptics are for the most part still using arguments long since dealt with.
 
mrmom2
#103
Global Warming: Truth or Dare?

Denis G. Rancourt
February 2007.


NOT THE GREATEST POTENTIAL THREAT TO HUMANITY

Global warming is often presented as the greatest potential threat to humankind and as the greatest environmental and ecological threat on the planet. It is also presented as a problem that could be solved or contained by determined international collaboration - by political will if it were present.

I argue: (1) that global warming (climate change, climate chaos, etc.) will not become humankind’s greatest threat until the sun has its next hiccup in a billion years or more (in the very unlikely scenario that we are still around), (2) that global warming is presently nowhere near being the planet’s most deadly environmental scourge, and (3) that government action and political will cannot measurably or significantly ameliorate global climate in the present world.

I also advance that there are strong societal, institutional, and psychological motivations for having constructed and for continuing to maintain the myth of a global warming dominant threat (global warming myth, for short). I describe these motivations in terms of the workings of the scientific profession and of the global corporate and finance network and its government shadows.

I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized.


ERODING THE VENEER

Since the global warming myth is presently the dominant environmental paradigm in the First World middleclass mainstream, let us put it into the relevant perspective of planetary warming mechanisms.

One should first recognise that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is a well known natural phenomenon, mostly caused by atmospheric water vapour, that keeps our planet warm and habitable whereas (anthropogenic = human-made) global warming refers to a small extra greenhouse warming (0.5-1 C/33 C; 1-5 %) allegedly arising from an increase in atmospheric concentration of the minority greenhouse effect gas CO2 (carbon dioxide) – the later increase in turn possibly arising from fossil fuel burning (see below).

This means that the global greenhouse effect gives earthlings a needed and much appreciated base warming of 33 C (degrees Celsius), whereas the alleged “global warming” would contribute an extra 0.5 to 1 C of warming (a 1 to 5 % increase), on a planet that has seen a dozen or so ice ages since human kind has appeared.

The most often cited reconstructed global average temperature curves (themselves somewhat tenuous, see below) show increases in global mean temperature of approximately 0.5-1 C in the last 100 years. Let us compare this to the extremes of temperature to which humans routinely adapt. Humans have thrived in every possible ecological niche on the planet, from deserts to tropical forests to the North Polar Regions, since well before present technological advances. These environments show mean temperature differences of as much as 50 C or more. Many of these environments also show day to night and seasonal differences of as much as 20-50 C. A sudden 0.5-1 C increase in mean annual temperature (not spread over 100 years) would be imperceptible to any human and indeed could barely be detected using all of the methods of the modern scientific enterprise.

In addition, whereas there is evidence of negative consequences to populations from sustained regional cooling (e.g., Europe’s Little Ice Age, 1300-1850 AD) and whereas global ice ages (occurring every 40-100 thousand years or so) clearly have significantly affected human populations, there is no known case of a sustained warming alone having negatively impacted an entire population. If it where not for the global greenhouse effect, the planet would on average be 33 C colder and inhabitable. As a general rule, all life on Earth does better when it’s hotter: Compare ecological diversity and biotic density (or biomass) at the poles and at the equator.

Humans have already adapted to dramatically different regional climates occurring in every corner of the planet and the alleged future global changes are very small compared to these existing variations. There are more displaced refugees from wars and from economic aggression than there will ever be displaced inhabitants from rapid climate-induced habitat transformations. In both cases, the solution is to accommodate those loosing their homes and communities, not to attempt to control planetary processes and unpredictable events.


IS THERE GLOBAL WARMING?

Before ‘climate chaos’ became cliché, many scientists advanced evidence for detected amounts of global average Earth surface temperature increases occurring in the post-industrial age. These reports, taken as a whole, were the main original catalysts towards constructing the global warming myth, so it is useful to critically examine their validity.

It was no easy task to arrive at the most cited original estimated rate of increase of the mean global surface temperature of 0.5 C in 100 years. As with any evaluation of a global spatio-temporal average, it involved elaborate and unreliable grid size dependent averages. In addition, it involved removal of outlying data, complex corrections for historical differences in measurement methods, measurement distributions, and measurement frequencies, and complex normalisations of different data sets – for example, land based and sea based measurements and the use of different temperature proxies that are in turn dependent on approximate calibration models. Even for modern thermometer readings in a given year, the very real problem of defining a robust and useful global spatio-temporal average Earth-surface temperature is not solved, and is itself an active area of research.

This means that determining an average of a quantity (Earth surface temperature) that is everywhere different and continuously changing with time at every point, using measurements at discrete times and places (weather stations), is virtually impossible; in that the resulting number is highly sensitive to the chosen extrapolation method(s) needed to calculate (or rather approximate) the average.

Averaging problems aside, many tenuous approximations must be made in order to arrive at any of the reported final global average temperature curves. For example, air temperature thermometers on ocean-going ships have been positioned at increasing heights as the sizes of ships have increased in recent history. Since temperature decreases with increasing altitude, this altitude effect must be corrected. The estimates are uncertain and can change the calculated global warming by as much as 0.5 C, thereby removing the originally reported effect entirely.

Similarly, surface ocean temperatures were first measured by drawing water up to the ship decks in cloth buckets and later in wooden buckets. Such buckets allow heat exchange in different amounts, thereby changing the measured temperature. This must be corrected by various estimates of sizes and types of buckets. These estimates are uncertain and can again change the resulting final calculated global warming value by an amount comparable to the 0.5 C value. There are a dozen or so similar corrections that must be applied, each one able to significantly alter the outcome.

In wanting to go further back in time, the technical problems are magnified. For example, when one uses a temperature proxy, such as the most popular tree ring proxy, instead of a physical thermometer, one has the significant problem of calibrating the proxy. With tree rings from a given preferred species of tree, there are all kinds of unavoidable artefacts related to wood density, wood water content, wood petrifaction processes, season duration effects, forest fire effects, extra-temperature biotic stress effects (such as recurring insect infestations), etc. Each proxy has its own calibration and preservation problems that are not fully understood.

The reported temperature curves should therefore be seen as tentative suggestions that the authors hope will catalyze more study and debate, not reliable results that one should use in guiding management practice or in deducing actual planetary trends. In addition, the original temperature or proxy data is usually not available to other research scientists who could critically examine the data treatment methods; nor are the data treatment methods spelled out in enough detail. Instead, the same massaged data is reproduced from report to report rather than re-examined.

The most recent thermometer measurements have their own special problems, not the least of which is urban warming, due to urban sprawl, which locally affects weather station mean temperatures and wind patterns: Temperatures locally change because local surroundings change. Most weather monitoring stations are located, for example, near airports which, in turn, are near expanding cities.

As a general rule in science, if an effect is barely detectable, requires dubious data treatment methods, and is sensitive to those data treatment methods and to other approximations, then it is not worth arguing over or interpreting and should not be used in further deductions or extrapolations. The same is true in attempting to establish causal relationships. This is in contrast to the precautionary principle which, in this context, would dictate that humans should reduce their fossil fuel burning because a resulting increase in atmospheric CO2 **might** cause serious environmental harm. I argue that we should stick to known consequences rather than potential ones – displacing people displaces people, clearing forests clears forests, etc. – and that we can apply universally accepted norms of human justice and respect for nature in limiting exploiters’ impulses.


WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND CLIMATE CHAOS

Global warming myth advocates emphasize that the alleged extra-CO2-driven warming does not occur uniformly, in that some regions are warmed more than others while other regions are cooled below their pre-warming averages. They claim that many regions therefore already suffer significant departures from their pre-warming average temperatures, by as much as 5 C, even though the overall global average increase is difficult to detect.

Whereas regional changes in average temperature (e.g., warmer poles and cooler tropics) are not in themselves bad, global warming myth advocates argue that such changes have significant negative ecological consequences. They argue that when regional climate changes occur, rather than simply causing geographical redistributions of ecosystems and niche creation, they instead cause permanent damages in the form of habitat loss and species loss.

Global warming myth advocates also argue that global warming drives increased climate chaos. That is, overall increases in extreme weather events, such as more frequent and more intense tropical hurricanes, more frequent and more intense heat waves, more frequent and more intense droughts and floods, etc.

The available data does not support these claims and does not allow one to conclude that we have entered into a period of greater climate chaos, let alone that any perceived increase in climate chaos would be caused by extra-CO2-driven planetary warming. Similarly, it is impossible to reliably establish (see below) that inferred regional warmings in the Polar Regions are caused by an extra-CO2-driven global greenhouse effect increase.

Weather is by its nature chaotic and unpredictable. Every year weather events occur and will always occur that have never occurred before in recorded history. A given July heat spell in North Bay, Ontario, will last longer than any other such heat spell that has also had more than three consecutive day-time highs of more than 35 C, for example. For the first time in recorded history, three selectively chosen Canadian northern towns of more than 50,000 inhabitants will not have snow at Christmas. One hundred year old trees will be uprooted by a hurricane in some locality in Northern Quebec in September, etc.

Regional weather (including regional air current patterns) is well known by climatologists to have measurable variations over a broad range of magnitudes and on every time scale, from decadal, to centennial, to millennial and beyond, as documented in climate and weather event records such as historical documents, tree rings, lake sediments, soil profiles, geological weathering patterns, etc. Climatologists have, for over one hundred years, studied these variations occurring on all continents and have always attempted to relate them to potential causal factors, with little success. Modern satellite observations and recent global circulation models have provided few significant advances, despite the hype.

Media sensationalism notwithstanding, none of the recent reports of weather events step outside of the statistical samples gathered by climatologists, as they have often informed us. Among other things, climatologists, environmental scientists, and statisticians have pointed out that: (1) North America has less frequent but more intense forest fires because foresters manage forests, (2) insurance companies pay out more natural catastrophe claims because there are more people living in more precarious areas with more expensive installations, (3) more people suffer the consequences of flooding because more people live in flood plains, (4) more urban elderly die in heat waves because they are older and live in isolation and in high rises, (5) water tables fall because of deforestation and watershed management practices, and so on.


GLACIERS AND PERMAFROST: PHENOMENON VERSUS CAUSE

Although weather is business as usual, there are significant changes occurring on the planet and some of these appear at first sight to be regional climate related.

For example, many high altitude glaciers are receding. Some glaciers are growing but it appears that more studied glaciers are receding than growing. The next question is why? There are no reports of average air temperature increases in the vicinities of these glaciers. To melt or sublimate ice one must supply a large amount of energy, far beyond what could be supplied by thermal conduction driven by an undetected temperature increase.

The required energy clearly comes from the sun, just as spring sunlight melts snow in temperate climates much more than the increase in air temperature ever could. More radiant energy must be deposited on the receding glaciers. Either there is more incident radiant energy or the glaciers are more able to absorb rather than reflect the incident radiation or both.

The causes of increased incident radiation can be one or a combination of the following: (1) there is more solar radiation because the sun itself is putting out more energy, the solar “constant” has increased, (2) more solar radiation directly comes through the atmosphere because the atmosphere is more transparent rather than reflective (e.g., less cloudy, less ozone), (3) more infra-red is sent back to the glaciers rather than escaping to outer space because the atmosphere is more greenhouse active (e.g., higher water vapour content), and (4) more ambient infra-red radiation is sent towards the glaciers via atmospheric greenhouse scattering because there is more ambient infra-red radiation originating from neighbouring ice-free cover that has become more incident-solar-radiation absorbent. The latter ice-free surfaces could have become more absorbent by changes in their surface properties (i.e., surface coverings). For example, deforested soil is more incident radiation absorbent than a forest cover, bare rock is much more absorbent than snow-covered rock, etc.

The glaciers themselves could have become more absorbent for incident radiation by various mechanisms. For example, mineral or organic or pollution atmospheric dust loads (e.g., fossil fuel burning soot) could have increased leading to dust delivery to the glaciers. Such microscopic deposited dust in turn makes a glacier surface more radiation absorbent. The type of snow that can cover a glacier will also affect its radiation (light) absorption and reflection properties and snow type (granularity, dendrite structure, etc.) is in turn dependent on several atmospheric properties. Volcanic activity, large scale forest or grassland fires, dominant wind patterns, large scale changes in soil humidity and other conditions arising from changes in agricultural practices, can all significantly alter atmospheric dust loads and the latter are known to affect regional scale solar radiation budgets.

We see therefore that receding glaciers are not even most directly a sign of global warming and that the actual mechanism(s) can include a host of other causes. Indeed, paleoclimatologists studying global climate and ice age cycles believe the opposite causal direction: Radiative loading and water cycle factors change snow and ice cover which in turn change global radiation balance (planetary surface albedo) which then provides a positive feedback for further warming (resulting from increased radiative loading) or cooling (resulting from decreased radiative loading). Indeed, the accepted theory of ice age cycles is based on solar radiation forcing arising from cyclical Sun-Earth orbital variations.

As another example, let us accept, for the sake of argument; that Polar Region warming is occurring beyond statistical variations of the last 100 years, say; that permafrost (permanently frozen subsoil) is less extensive; and that polar ocean ice coverages are less prominent. The next question is why? Ocean currents have not dramatically changed, nor have measured sea level air temperatures.

These changes can again be due to solar radiative effects, along the same lines as explained above for receding glaciers. For ocean glaciers the above discussion of mechanisms for receding high altitude glaciers applies exactly whereas minor modifications are needed for receding permafrost.

In the case of permafrost, the seasonal duration of direct solar radiation loading to the soil is probably the dominant factor. This duration is inversely related to the duration of soil snow and ice cover which in turn can be controlled by the same factors discussed above that control high altitude glacier recession.

In conclusion, all the main easily observable and most cited regional warming effects are probably driven by radiative mechanisms having nothing to do with (i.e., not being caused by) global warming or increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration. More likely causal factors include: soot from coal-powered plants, mineral, soil, and organic matter dust from changes in agricultural practices, fires from changes in water and land management practices, increased high-altitude and polar atmospheric transparency, changes in the solar constant, etc.

This is not to say that these local and regional warming phenomena are not important and do not affect ecosystems and people’s lives. But then if we want to help these people (mostly Polar Region and high altitude aboriginal people) then we need only help them! For example, we could ask what help they most need rather than continuing to pollute their environment and destroy their lands by resource exploitation. If we want to stop destroying habitat, we could stop destroying habitat.


SCIENCE IS NOT THE ANSWER

Environmental scientists and government agencies get funding to study and monitor problems that do not threaten corporate and financial interests. It is therefore no surprise that they would attack continental-scale devastation from resource extraction via the CO2 back door. The main drawback with this strategy is that you cannot control a hungry monster by asking it not to **** as much.

Somewhere First World middleclassers will need to abandon the lies that we live in democracies, that the corporate profit motive guarantees environmental protection, that servicing manufactured debt advances society, that corporate agri-business is the best way to feed people, that making a mess everywhere to serve share holders is the best way to generate well being, and that exploiting others is a good way to help them, not to mention that war is an acceptable method to bring justice and freedom to enslaved populations.

The planet will continue to change, adapt and evolve, with or without us. Recurring episodes of increased volcanic activity will continue to alter our climate. Ice ages will continue to come and go. Meteorites will continue to impact our planetary home. Disease and insect outbursts, wild fires, floods, and earthquakes will continue to wash over us as we adapt and respond. The sun will continue to vary its output and will eventually burn out. The atmosphere will continue to change as it always has under the influence of life and of geology. We can’t control these things. We can barely perceive them correctly. But we can take control of how we treat each other.

The best we can do for the environment and for the planet is to learn not to let undemocratic power structures run our lives. The best we can do is to reject exploitation and domination and to embrace cooperation and solidarity. The best we can do is to not trust subservient scientists and to become active agents for change beyond head-in-the-sand personal lifestyle choices.

We need to get political, beyond corporate-controlled shadow governments and co-opted political parties. We need to take charge more than we need to recycle. Concentrated power and capital are not about to give up their practices or their imperative for profit. Resistance to the insane return-on-investments hydra that inhabits our planet is our main responsibility if we are concerned about future generations.

There are real environmental problems on the planet. Agriculture, especially large-scale corporate chemical fertilizer and pesticide-based agriculture, is the main human force that has transformed the planet. Resource extraction and use is a close second, including energy, minerals, building materials, etc. Toxic substance pollution vies for an important place, with everything from persistent organic pollutants, to heavy metals, to radioactive substances, to pharmaceutical metabolites, all the way to industrially prepared food products. The industrial food-animal cycle is another wonderful experiment in attempted mass suicide, not to mention its grotesque inanimality.


THE BEST WAY TO STOP IS TO STOP

All in all, the best way to not pollute and destroy the environment is to not pollute and destroy the environment. The best way to not exploit others is to not exploit others. I am not talking only about personal lifestyle choices, alternative information sources, and volunteer work. I am talking about taking back control from undemocratically run corporations and illegitimate concentrations of power, by all the effective means we can muster and as though our survival depended on it. I am talking about activism.

Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass. Nobody else cares about global warming. Exploited factory workers in the Third World don’t care about global warming. Depleted uranium genetically mutilated children in Iraq don’t care about global warming. Devastated aboriginal populations the world over also can’t relate to global warming, except maybe as representing the only solidarity that we might volunteer.

If we want to help island dwellers threatened by a predicted sea level rise then let’s help those island dwellers. If we are worried about victims of weather events then let us help those victims. The poorest Hurricane Katrina victims are still waiting.

It’s not about limited resources. [“The amount of money spent on pet food in the US and Europe each year equals the additional amount needed to provide basic food and health care for all the people in poor countries, with a sizeable amount left over.” (UN Human Development Report, 1999)] It’s about exploitation, oppression, racism, power, and greed. Economic, human, and animal justice brings economic sustainability which in turn is always based on renewable practices. Recognizing the basic rights of native people automatically moderates resource extraction and preserves natural habitats. Not permitting imperialist wars and interventions automatically quenches nation-scale exploitation. True democratic control over monetary policy goes a long way in removing debt-based extortion. Etc.


BACK TO SCIENCE: THE PROBLEM WITH CO2

Regarding planetary greenhouse warming, by far the most important greenhouse active atmospheric gas is water vapour – it is a major constituent of the atmosphere whereas CO2 is a trace atmospheric gas. This is well known and it is established, for example, that even doubling the present atmospheric CO2 concentration, to the unattainable value of 800 ppm (parts per million) say, without changing anything else in the atmosphere, would have little discernable effect on global temperature or climate.

All of the climate models that relate CO2 concentrations to climate effects do so by arbitrarily linking a model increase in CO2 to an induced and larger increase in atmospheric water vapour. In other words, all the climate models postulate a large and positive feedback between CO2 and water vapour.

Several scientists have argued that these models are computer realizations of the tail wagging the dog. Water vapour is the dominant greenhouse factor and the behaviour of water in the atmosphere is far more complex than that of CO2 (clouds, rain, snow, evaporation, etc.) yet CO2 is taken to drive the water cycle rather than water taken to drive CO2 dynamics; using a fictitious multiplicative feedback factor.

On the contrary, for example: Water is often the determining factor in vegetation growth. Vegetation growth in turn consumes CO2 and is the greatest active bound-carbon (C) pool on the planet. Therefore, it is more correct to say that water drives the carbon cycle. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is only a remote witness to all the natural and anthropogenic processes that consume and produce CO2.

There is no known mechanism whereby an increase in CO2 concentration could directly cause an increase in water vapour concentration in the amount required by climate computer models. On the other hand, there are many known mechanisms whereby water vapour concentration can be dramatically affected by various external agents. Some examples are as follows: (1) solar input drives convection and winds which in turn largely determine atmospheric evaporation loading, (2) deforestation and agriculture expose soils which are sources of mineral and organic dust which in turn can induce precipitation or can affect solar radiation balances, (3) solar winds of cosmic rays can induce high altitude cloud formation thereby reducing solar radiation penetration, etc.

Ice core data shows strong temporal correlations between average global temperature (as recorded by the water oxygen isotope proxy) and atmospheric CO2 (as recorded in trapped gas bubbles) yet these correlations do not show causal relations. CO2 increases may accompany temperature increases rather than causing them. Indeed, some high resolution studies have suggested that the temperature increases precede the CO2 increases. Interestingly, also, ice core data shows strong temporal correlations between inferred temperature and amount of dust preserved in the ice core. Finally, the older geological record shows several dramatic examples of where CO2 concentration and global average temperature were either unrelated or even anti-correlated.

Just as solar radiation intensity and inclination determines our seasons and the differences between day and night, so too solar radiation variations related to solar winds, magnetic shielding, and solar intensity cycles (e.g., sunspots) probably have a greater impact on the water cycle than changes in any greenhouse active trace gas.
There is of course much more wrong with state-of-the-art global circulation models (climate models) than the assumption and implementation of CO2-H2O feedback. Although these models are among the most elaborate predictive models of complex non-linear phenomena, they are nonetheless sweeping oversimplifications of the global climate system and its mechanistic intricacies.


IF IT WERE CO2 THEN COULD WE CONTROL IT?

Disregarding the above objections, if we take CO2 to be the pivotal quantity, then even this CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is not easy for scientists to understand. While the value of the CO2 concentration can be measured reliably and accurately and while it is increasing, possibly in response to fossil fuel burning, the measured increase is not proportional to the known increase in fossil fuel consumption. There is not a simple relation between fossil fuel burning and atmospheric CO2 in two key respects: (1) the temporal variations of burning and of atmospheric CO2 concentration do not follow each other – the curves do not match, they do not have the same shape, and (2) the net extra (post-industrial) amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be reconciled with the amount of CO2 produced by fossil fuel burning.

Regarding the latter point, the resulting amount of CO2 in the atmosphere depends on many processes that either produce CO2 (that are sources) or consume CO2 (that are sinks). Growth of plants is a sink. Degradation of soil or sediment organic matter is a source. Burying and preserving sedimentary or soil organic matter from oxidation is a sink. Breathing is a form of combustion and is a source. Photosynthesis is a sink. Fossil fuels are preserved organic matter not yet degraded by oxidation (or combustion). Deforestation is a net source since forests are larger repositories of bound carbon than are agricultural or grazing lands. The weathering of rocks and the erosion of mountains is a source, as is mining. Etc. As it turns out, when all the known sources and sinks are added up, scientists are not able to account for half of the CO2 produced by fossil fuel burning.

In other words, there is a “missing sink” that is taking up approximately half of the CO2 produced by fossil fuel burning; that would otherwise end up in the atmosphere. This is a massive amount that scientists simply cannot account for. Clearly, the complex source and sink mechanisms of the bio and geospheres are far from completely understood, as are the myriad of feedback mechanisms that can dramatically either slow or intensify the rates of sinking and sourcing.

The point here is that CO2 concentration itself, even if we stubbornly cling to it as a holly grail of climate mediation, most probably cannot be controlled by controlling anthropogenic CO2 emissions. There are more unknown and unforeseeable CO2 evolution feedback mechanisms then there are climate research institutes on the planet.

Even among human activities, there are many practices that can potentially affect atmospheric CO2 fluxes more than direct mitigation of fossil fuel burning. These include: distribution-of-wealth practices; world investment, trading and lending practices; democratic versus corporate control over the media, over marketing and over the mental environment in general; military intervention and intimidation practices; and so on. Each of the above areas of societal behaviour and organization can be shown to significantly alter or moderate global CO2 fluxes between the atmosphere and other compartments.

Excluding direct human activities (land and water use, etc.), there are major natural factors that affect CO2 atmospheric loading. These are only partially understood and include: geological weathering, ocean sedimentation, land plant growth, soil evolution, sediment diagenesis, ecological niche invasion, volcanic activity, continental subduction, and many others. Indeed, there is no accepted model that quantitatively explains atmospheric CO2 concentration, given our limited knowledge of these factors.

The atmosphere is one of the smallest pools or compartments for carbon (as CO2) and it responds quickly to any flux changes with the other compartments. These flux routes are varied and largely unknown, as are the mechanisms that control flux magnitudes. To believe that we could control atmospheric CO2 concentration by controlling only the flux from anthropogenic fossil fuel burning is naive. Burning mitigation or carbon sequestration practices could easily have no effect or opposite effects, even if significant societal efforts were dedicated to such efforts.


read the rest here


http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/...h-or-dare.html
 
Cobalt_Kid
#104
What a load of nonsense going on here. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and higher concentrations in the atmosphere do coincide with elevated temperatures on the planet.

During the Snowball Earth period about 600 million years ago most of the planets surface was covered in ice stopping CO2 uptake from exposed soil and oceans. Volcanic activity put large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere eventually warming the planet and thawing much of the ice allowing uptake of CO2 again. It's thought the Earth went through an number of these cylces. If it wasn't for CO2 in all likelyhood we wouldn't even be here. Only now we're going in the other extreme and the Permian extinction shows just how devastating high global temperatures can be.

And the environmental problems we have aren't just limited to Global Warming; habitate destruction, loss of bio-diversity, and increasing acidicy of the oceans are just a few to name. Clearly our way of life isn't sustainable in the long term.

If this was 30 years ago the people attacing Global Warming would be atacking the science behind tobacco and cancer and for the same reasons. I don't expect you to stop because I understand how much money is involved here, but I do know you're full of ****.
Last edited by Cobalt_Kid; Nov 14th, 2007 at 05:36 PM..
 
mrmom2
#105
Same can be said for your global warming relegion Cobalt All hail Al Gore
 
EagleSmack
#106
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Grow up EagleSmack. Go to the thread on Gore winning the Nobel prize to see my opinion. He's not my savior. If you think I get my info from Gore, perhaps that's a reflection of your own information gathering methods on this subject.

I prefer to base my opinion on papers with footnotes and references, not red herrings and other logical fallacies.

Anyone who claims to follow the science is one who changes their opinion based on the available and ever changing observable facts. The climate community has evolved. The skeptics are for the most part still using arguments long since dealt with.

Grow up? How about you opening your eyes. The only information you folks will listen to is those put forward by GW Advocates.


I agree...the climate community is changing. No longer are scientist remaining silent or being bullied into silence because they see huge flaws in the GW data. No longer are the threats of pulled grants and funding silencing these folks.

You cannot not read one paper and look at it objectivly because you are so invested that we are in a planetary emergency. But now your ring leaders are being exposed for what they are and their information is being proven wrong.

Glaciers in Greenland are receeding. Well ice shelves are increasing in the Antartic.


"Pay no mind to the man behind the curtain!"
 
EagleSmack
#107
Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_Kid View Post


If this was 30 years ago the people attacing Global Warming would be atacking the science behind tobacco and cancer and for the same reasons. I don't expect you to stop because I understand how much money is involved here, but I do know you're full of ****.

You keep bringing up tobacco and cancer.


Why are you not bringing up Asbestos Canada? Canada is one of the biggest producers and exporters of one of the most deadly and toxic insulation material. So deadly that developed nations have banned it. However greed spurns the Canadian Govt. to allow it's mining, production and sales to under developed countries with the full knowledge that people are dying because of it.
 
gerryh
#108
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

You keep bringing up tobacco and cancer.


Why are you not bringing up Asbestos Canada? Canada is one of the biggest producers and exporters of one of the most deadly and toxic insulation material. So deadly that developed nations have banned it. However greed spurns the Canadian Govt. to allow it's mining, production and sales to under developed countries with the full knowledge that people are dying because of it.


and this has what to do with Global Warming? Nothing, that's what. It's called deflection...kinda like waving at someone and yelling.."LOOK AT THAT OVER THERE".
 
Tonington
#109
There's definitely many liberties taken in that essay. Heres one for starters:
Quote:

In other words, there is a “missing sink” that is taking up approximately half of the CO2 produced by fossil fuel burning; that would otherwise end up in the atmosphere. This is a massive amount that scientists simply cannot account for. Clearly, the complex source and sink mechanisms of the bio and geospheres are far from completely understood, as are the myriad of feedback mechanisms that can dramatically either slow or intensify the rates of sinking and sourcing.

In the preceding paragraph, he mentions sinks like vegetation and soil. Then he concludes that scientists can not determine what sink is taking up half of the human emissions.

Is he serious? What kind of research does he do? He mentions some large sinks, but leaves out the single largest sink on Earth, and it's very noticeable from space. Any guesses? Ummm, the Oceans perhaps?

Here's another gem of misdirection:
Quote:

Ice core data shows strong temporal correlations between average global temperature (as recorded by the water oxygen isotope proxy) and atmospheric CO2 (as recorded in trapped gas bubbles) yet these correlations do not show causal relations. CO2 increases may accompany temperature increases rather than causing them. Indeed, some high resolution studies have suggested that the temperature increases precede the CO2 increases.

LOL. In the paragraph I posted before this one, he talked of carbon sources and carbon sinks. Temperature increases before carbon dioxide concentrations. Correct. There are a number of mechanisms which have CAUSED this to happen in the past. It's called a forcing.

Well, if you look at the citations on the bottom of the page, you'll see James Hansen's name published four times. He doesn't properly state in his essay where the references were used, one of the many beefs I have with this paper. Lets hope he is as liberal with academic propriety when he marks student papers. But back to my point. Here is what Hansen has found in his paleo-climate studies. This excerpt comes from a hearing where Hansen appeared as an expert witness:
Quote:

Q. Yet the global warming also shown in Figure 8 does not seem to be commensurate with the
greenhouse gas increases, if we were to use the paleoclimate as a guide. Can you explain
that?

A. Yes. Observed warming is in excellent agreement with climate model calculations for observed greenhouse gas changes. Two factors must be recognized. First, the climate system has not had enough time to fully respond to the human-made climate forcings. The time scale after 1850 is greatly expanded in Figure 8. The paleoclimate portion of the graph shows the near-equilibrium (~1000 year) response to slowly changing forcings. In the modern era, most of the net human-made forcing was added in the past 30 years, so the ocean has not had time to fully respond and the ice sheets are just beginning to respond to the present forcing.

Second, the climate system responds to the net forcing, which is only about half as large
as the greenhouse gas forcing. The net forcing is reduced by negative forcings, especially
human-made aerosols (fine particles).

Some nice hand waving by Rancourt, but very little of substance, except for his criticisms of corporate deviance.
 
EagleSmack
#110
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

and this has what to do with Global Warming? Nothing, that's what. It's called deflection...kinda like waving at someone and yelling.."LOOK AT THAT OVER THERE".

I am merely pointing out what he has done and highlighting what many of you GW conspiracists have done throughout this thread.


You just don't like your deflections defelcted!
 
Tonington
#111
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Grow up? How about you opening your eyes. The only information you folks will listen to is those put forward by GW Advocates.

Apparently you didn't check out the thread I directed you to. Open your eyes indeed. Mine are wide open.

Perhaps I should have said use your brain, you're probably already 'grown up'.


Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

I agree...the climate community is changing. No longer are scientist remaining silent or being bullied into silence because they see huge flaws in the GW data. No longer are the threats of pulled grants and funding silencing these folks.

That is a load of sh|t. There have been studies published every year lauded by skeptics. If anything, the reason some scientists are not given funding, is that they are too vocal. Try getting published if you're blabbing about the results before they accept your study. Great way to burn bridges. Science has published skeptic friendly studies, Nature has published skeptic friendly studies, Geophysical Research Letters has published skeptic friendly studies. I could go on. Most use some novel statistical maneuvering to try and resolve the many weak areas that the global warming theory cannot explain. The picture is far from complete.

But to cry foul like some have, welcome to the conspiracy camp. Ask Logic 7 where the good seats are

Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

You cannot not read one paper and look at it objectivly because you are so invested that we are in a planetary emergency. But now your ring leaders are being exposed for what they are and their information is being proven wrong.

You and I have hardly discussed anything in sufficient detail for you to make any assertions like that. You're trying hard to lump me in with the extreme lefty hemp wearing vegans, but you'll fall flat on your face every time.

I have to read papers objectively every single day. My area of study is constantly bombarded by environmental advocates, like Suzuki. Some criticisms of aquaculture are valid, and others are not. I'll admit them readily.

Name my ring leaders, oh great seer.

Do you know how to function without talking from the other end of your tract?
 
EagleSmack
#112
Cliff Ollier, well-known geoscientist from the University of Western Australia, writes to say that Hansen is just a climate modeler who doesn’t understand either ice caps or their melting. He thinks the whole ice cap melting thing is a figment of the climate modelers’ computerized imaginations, conjured up to ensure that we’re properly frightened of global warming. Otherwise, the grant money might dry up.


For your enjoyment.
 
EagleSmack
#113
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Apparently you didn't check out the thread I directed you to. Open your eyes indeed. Mine are wide open.

Perhaps I should have said use your brain, you're probably already 'grown up'.




That is a load of sh|t. There have been studies published every year lauded by skeptics. If anything, the reason some scientists are not given funding, is that they are too vocal. Try getting published if you're blabbing about the results before they accept your study. Great way to burn bridges. Science has published skeptic friendly studies, Nature has published skeptic friendly studies, Geophysical Research Letters has published skeptic friendly studies. I could go on. Most use some novel statistical maneuvering to try and resolve the many weak areas that the global warming theory cannot explain. The picture is far from complete.

But to cry foul like some have, welcome to the conspiracy camp. Ask Logic 7 where the good seats are



You and I have hardly discussed anything in sufficient detail for you to make any assertions like that. You're trying hard to lump me in with the extreme lefty hemp wearing vegans, but you'll fall flat on your face every time.

I have to read papers objectively every single day. My area of study is constantly bombarded by environmental advocates, like Suzuki. Some criticisms of aquaculture are valid, and others are not. I'll admit them readily.

Name my ring leaders, oh great seer.

Do you know how to function without talking from the other end of your tract?

Insults and ridicule. Yup... the first sign of one losing the argument. It is also keeping with the GW Religion.

Ah yes... Suzuki... Canada's equivalent to our very own GW Church Ldr. Gore. The one who drives massive bus motocades on his sweeping tour to promote GW!


I understand that you GW folks are against the ropes. I do. It is hard to see something you bought into turn out to be a fraud and lose speed. That is what this GW Movement is doing...going out with a whimper. It will fade...it already is.
 
Tonington
#114
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Insults and ridicule. Yup... the first sign of one losing the argument. It is also keeping with the GW Religion.

Ah yes... Suzuki... Canada's equivalent to our very own GW Church Ldr. Gore. The one who drives massive bus motocades on his sweeping tour to promote GW!


I understand that you GW folks are against the ropes. I do. It is hard to see something you bought into turn out to be a fraud and lose speed. That is what this GW Movement is doing...going out with a whimper. It will fade...it already is.

What argument. So far all you've said is:
  • global warming is fake
  • global warming activists aren't objective
  • Gore is a hypocrite, global warming must be a scam
  • global warming activists are liberal wackos
  • you provide op-ed pieces as truth
  • you use strawmen arguments
  • you associate me with Gore, through no endorsement on my part
When I address any of them, you simply repeat this list of fallacies. There is no argument. You provide very little to argue against, except you attacks on my objectivity.

Can you provide evidence that global warming is going out like a whimper? If anything, it's growing in support.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/h...ollclimate.pdf
Your politicians know this too:
http://www.time.com/time/2007/includes/eco_vote.pdf
 
EagleSmack
#115
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

What argument. So far all you've said is:

  • global warming is fake
  • global warming activists aren't objective
  • Gore is a hypocrite, global warming must be a scam
  • global warming activists are liberal wackos
  • you provide op-ed pieces as truth
  • you use strawmen arguments
  • you associate me with Gore, through no endorsement on my part
When I address any of them, you simply repeat this list of fallacies. There is no argument. You provide very little to argue against, except you attacks on my objectivity.

Can you provide evidence that global warming is going out like a whimper? If anything, it's growing in support.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/h...ollclimate.pdf
Your politicians know this too:
http://www.time.com/time/2007/includes/eco_vote.pdf


By the mere fact that you call data op-ed pieces tells me you are not objective and your claim to use science is well...unsound.


I am saying that we are not in a planetary emergency and this warming trend is the natural progression. Things will warm...things will cool...things will warm...things will cool.

Glaciers will shrink here... glaciers will grow there.


GW advocates want to stick it to big oil (which I despise) and that is why they do this. They have not been successful so they want to force them to pay to their cause.


The GW movement peaked shortly after an "Inconvenient Truth" and has since been cut down from all sides. Sure it makes a bump here and there. Especially here on CC! But out there...in the world...nothing is happening. Politicians will say this or that but what have they really done? Seriously...what have they done?


Not a thing.
 
Cobalt_Kid
#116
Well said gerry.
 
gopher
+1
#117
Many people who rely on the opinion of experts take issue with the notion that global warming is baseless:

UN chief says global warming is 'an emergency'


http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/...section=justin


With prehistoric Antarctic ice sheets melting beneath his feet, United Nations (UN) secretary-general Ban Ki-moon has called for urgent political action to tackle global warming.
The Antarctic Peninsula has warmed faster than anywhere else on Earth in the last 50 years, making the continent a fitting destination for Mr Ban, who has made climate change a priority since he took office earlier this year.


... more ...
 
gerryh
#118
Hmmmmm.... that's the exact opposite of what eagle said....didn't he state that the Antacrctic ice sheets were growing?
 
Cobalt_Kid
#119
According to the GW deniers the world is getting colder, kind of the same way the tobacco companies used to claim smoking was good for you.
 
Tonington
#120
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Hmmmmm.... that's the exact opposite of what eagle said....didn't he state that the Antacrctic ice sheets were growing?

It's not actually at odds. The peninsula Gopher writes of is very unstable. While that particular area is experiencing melting, and ice slipping along into the ocean, the continent as a whole is increasing in mass.

Theres a number of explanations for the instability in the Western peninsula, most prevalent seem to be the shifting of wind currents, which coincidentally is also implicated in the enhanced melt of the Arctic ice cover.

So far it's all still conjecture. Probably a good candidate for research (hint, hint, cough skeptics)