The problem with using animals for examples is that they are believers, you won't find ostriches or toads that stupid.:wave:
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
The problem with using animals for examples is that they are believers, you won't find ostriches or toads that stupid.:wave:
More than 17,000 scientists, to date, have signed a petition sponsored by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences, refuting Gore's claims that global warming is human-induced. The petition states: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
-------------------------------Curiosity-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Curiosity, you're a heretic too. Apostate thou art !!
You are a denier. An ostrich.
According to the believers.
-------------------------------Curiosity-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Curiosity, you're a heretic too. Apostate thou art !!
You are a denier. An ostrich.
According to the believers.
Bernard Miller wrote:
Ferdinand Engelbeen wrote: At this moment, there is a petition going around against the questionable
science behind the UN/IPCC predictions. See:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/ That web site contains a lot of interesting
information.
That petition is already signed by over 17,000 scientists. Signers of this
petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists,
meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists.
The OISM Petition to which Mr. Engelbeen refers is one of many petitions produced by or at the request of petroleum producers, the chlorine industry (for which Mr. Engelbeen speaks) and their various PR and trade organisations. On some petitions, the scientists quoted have never been traced as existing and in some cases genuine scientists whose signatures purportedly appeared on petitions, when approached by independent investigators denied ever signing them. For people who are not familiar with the way in which the PR industry attempts to mislead not just the public in general but scientists and doctors, this book is an eye-opener. In the case of this petition, the OISM tried to give the impression that the paper which accompanied the petition had been approved by the National Academy of Sciences, obliging the NAS to take the unusual step of issuing a disclaimer.
Ferdinand Engelbeen wrote: At this moment, there is a petition going around against the questionable
science behind the UN/IPCC predictions. See:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/ That web site contains a lot of interesting
information.
That petition is already signed by over 17,000 scientists. Signers of this
petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists,
meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists.
The OISM Petition to which Mr. Engelbeen refers is one of many petitions produced by or at the request of petroleum producers, the chlorine industry (for which Mr. Engelbeen speaks) and their various PR and trade organisations. On some petitions, the scientists quoted have never been traced as existing and in some cases genuine scientists whose signatures purportedly appeared on petitions, when approached by independent investigators denied ever signing them. For people who are not familiar with the way in which the PR industry attempts to mislead not just the public in general but scientists and doctors, this book is an eye-opener. In the case of this petition, the OISM tried to give the impression that the paper which accompanied the petition had been approved by the National Academy of Sciences, obliging the NAS to take the unusual step of issuing a disclaimer.
Could you expand upon that last post Juan ?
I understand that you are posting evidence of the petition Curiosity mentions is a fraud ?
I understand that you are posting evidence of the petition Curiosity mentions is a fraud ?
There is a lot of information....Far be it from me to call anyone a fraud. I'm sure you know that petitions can be made to say many things..
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/0107/msg00321.html
JimMoyer
"Upstart" here... at least that was a kinder name than some have been throwing around lol....
Don't get me wrong, if there is global warming, I think we as people inhabiting this earth - all nations - should be informed, educated and determined to wipe out the major causes of this event... if it is
going to be a chronic event.....
I am still out on the jury with that one....
What I dislike about the topic is global warming has become so politicized, people get way too emotional about what causes it .... rather than seeking to find the real causes... it is being used as a
political tool..... as if some party or corporation has caused it... which is psychobabble of the worst
kind... it is heretic, hysterical, and uninformed chatter from those who seek to garner votes and notoriety on the topic ... when nations cannot address one aspect of so many issues before all of us.
Take WAR for instance. Why worry about global warming when we are continuing to kill each other and plot new and more exotic methods of so doing.
What if one day we discovered how to cut back the pollutions, the toxic wastes, and were on the brink of reclaiming a healthy earth for our civilization, and some idiot decided that was the week he or she was going to spread some highly infection disease to perhaps ten wealthy countries around the globe.....which would have the same possibilty of wiping out billions of people.... more than global "warming" itself is touted to so do.
We spend far too much time deflecting that the other side are monstrous instead of the only way we can overcome this problem.... working together in a common cause.... but as long as people perpetuate it as a political issue.... nothing will be done.... and the leaders know it... keep the people busy arguing, they won't notice who is for or against addressing a solution...
And they say a fence between the U.S. and Mexico is a problem.... hoot people build fences all the time.... ideological fences and shutters and closed minds..... instead of applying some listening and learning power.
"Upstart" here... at least that was a kinder name than some have been throwing around lol....
Don't get me wrong, if there is global warming, I think we as people inhabiting this earth - all nations - should be informed, educated and determined to wipe out the major causes of this event... if it is
going to be a chronic event.....
I am still out on the jury with that one....
What I dislike about the topic is global warming has become so politicized, people get way too emotional about what causes it .... rather than seeking to find the real causes... it is being used as a
political tool..... as if some party or corporation has caused it... which is psychobabble of the worst
kind... it is heretic, hysterical, and uninformed chatter from those who seek to garner votes and notoriety on the topic ... when nations cannot address one aspect of so many issues before all of us.
Take WAR for instance. Why worry about global warming when we are continuing to kill each other and plot new and more exotic methods of so doing.
What if one day we discovered how to cut back the pollutions, the toxic wastes, and were on the brink of reclaiming a healthy earth for our civilization, and some idiot decided that was the week he or she was going to spread some highly infection disease to perhaps ten wealthy countries around the globe.....which would have the same possibilty of wiping out billions of people.... more than global "warming" itself is touted to so do.
We spend far too much time deflecting that the other side are monstrous instead of the only way we can overcome this problem.... working together in a common cause.... but as long as people perpetuate it as a political issue.... nothing will be done.... and the leaders know it... keep the people busy arguing, they won't notice who is for or against addressing a solution...
And they say a fence between the U.S. and Mexico is a problem.... hoot people build fences all the time.... ideological fences and shutters and closed minds..... instead of applying some listening and learning power.
Curiosity, I meant no attack on your credibility. I wanted to see what evidence
Juan had concerning the petition you mentioned.
These guys are so sold on human causes for global warming I fear
they are likely to ignore all the bureaucratic abuses and mistakes that will spring
from such a religious conviction.
Example: the holy grail lately is the flourescent tube replacing incandescents.
The environmentalists are all hopping on board, forgetting that the new flourescents
have mercury in their composition.
I also don't like the total denialists of the conservative side to do nothing but
wait for the market to wake up.
Juan had concerning the petition you mentioned.
These guys are so sold on human causes for global warming I fear
they are likely to ignore all the bureaucratic abuses and mistakes that will spring
from such a religious conviction.
Example: the holy grail lately is the flourescent tube replacing incandescents.
The environmentalists are all hopping on board, forgetting that the new flourescents
have mercury in their composition.
I also don't like the total denialists of the conservative side to do nothing but
wait for the market to wake up.
If we wait for concrete dyed in the wool god given 100% undeniable proof and unanimous agreement, It'll be too late eh.
To tout that a petition is already signed by over 17,000 scientists-- -Signers of this
petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists,
meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists when in fact that was not the case is fraud in any language. This is not to blame any poster who took this petition at face value. The fraud was the writers of the partition who claimed backing by scientific boards that didn't exist, and claiming signatures of real scientists who didn't sign, as well as quoting people who didn't exist.
I've looked at that fact sheet before. Most glaring is the claims they make about benefits to agriculture. I gave a quick rundown on that in another thread. Basically, they used a study which only used increases in carbon dioxide to show that plants will grow better. Well that might be true if there weren't also simultaneous changes in temperature and precipitation. I'll tell you right now my knuckles would be rapped if I passsed in a lab report with crap methodology like that.
Dr. Frederick Seitz in his own statement denying Global Warming admits its happening. His line is "sure we are doing it, but it won't be bad". And that is true, it won't be bad for all of us. Its a shift in the climate, not a collapse. The thing is, for alot of people who build their lives and economy around the way things are now, change is bad.
Its not that they couldn't adapt, or that if they did adapt it wouldnt be better..its that its hard and uncomfortable.
Sure the eastern sea board will be flooded, but there will be alot more real eastate opening up north. We will lose alot of current farmland, but new farmland will open up north.
But for those who like the status quo, we should seek to stop global warming.
Its not that they couldn't adapt, or that if they did adapt it wouldnt be better..its that its hard and uncomfortable.
Sure the eastern sea board will be flooded, but there will be alot more real eastate opening up north. We will lose alot of current farmland, but new farmland will open up north.
But for those who like the status quo, we should seek to stop global warming.
I guess I'm an ostrich then, because I cannot see how anyone could prove that climate change is
1. not a recurring cycle;
2. CAUSED rather than contributed to by human activity.
Last I read, we are still far from being able to state absolutes in global climate.
1. not a recurring cycle;
2. CAUSED rather than contributed to by human activity.
Last I read, we are still far from being able to state absolutes in global climate.
Maybe you're right Gilbert, but, the only way to find out for sure is to do nothing, and if global warming from humans turns out to be real well what then, I have read that if we get on with it, it will be a great thing for the economy, the most entrenched concerns who do not want to change are the big sellers of oil, they loose money, tough.:wave:
JimMoyer
No problem - I took no offense....
LGilbert
I see what you are saying .... what can we do? Changing lightbulbs and stopping the use of gasoline in our daily lives.... what else? Turning off all our energy sources one hour a day? Grounding aircraft?
Stopping regular manufacturing of products and food for intermittent periods of time? Can anyone see the impact of this? People would be working underground to continue their production regardless only they would be breaking the new "global warming laws"....
All of this on a global basis? When the world can't even talk peace without taking potshots?
We would use more energy getting it started again! It just doesn't make sense...
Conservation is valid on a small scale but not for the whole earth.
We have to find more planet friendly "gadgets" and to this I look to all nations working together rather than throwing spitballs at each other which accomplishes nothing.
No problem - I took no offense....
LGilbert
I see what you are saying .... what can we do? Changing lightbulbs and stopping the use of gasoline in our daily lives.... what else? Turning off all our energy sources one hour a day? Grounding aircraft?
Stopping regular manufacturing of products and food for intermittent periods of time? Can anyone see the impact of this? People would be working underground to continue their production regardless only they would be breaking the new "global warming laws"....
All of this on a global basis? When the world can't even talk peace without taking potshots?
We would use more energy getting it started again! It just doesn't make sense...
Conservation is valid on a small scale but not for the whole earth.
We have to find more planet friendly "gadgets" and to this I look to all nations working together rather than throwing spitballs at each other which accomplishes nothing.
I'm pretty damned sure I'm right, but being right does NOT mean that I advocate doing nothing so get that out of your head. Cutting down CO² emmissions is only part of the program, too. As I posted earlier, even if there's doubt that CO² is a GHG, there are still a couple dozen others that are and most are manmade. Those we should stop period.
(I guess it's true that people only read what they want to read and miss parts of others' posts. Or else they just assume they know what others are saying). Think I'll change my signature.
From Times Online
February 18, 2005
New proof that man has caused global warming
/* Global variables that are used for "image browsing". Used on article pages to rotate the images of a story. */ var sImageBrowserImagePath = ''; var aArticleImages = new Array(); var aImageDescriptions = new Array(); var aImageEnlargeLink = new Array(); var aImageEnlargePopupWidth = '500'; var aImageEnlargePopupHeight = '500'; var aImagePhotographer = new Array(); var nSelectedArticleImage = 0; var i=0;
From Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent, in Washington
The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the world’s oceans.
The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new research has revealed.
The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday.
"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."
In the study, Dr Barnett’s team examined more than seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans, collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and compared the patterns with those that are predicted by computer models of various potential causes of climate change.
It found that natural variation in the Earth’s climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. Models based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations almost precisely.
"What absolutely nailed it was the greenhouse model," Dr Barnett told the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Washington. Two models, one designed in Britain and one here in the US, got it almost exactly. We were stunned. They did it so well it was almost unbelieveable."
Climate change has affected the seas in different ways in different parts of the world: in the Atlantic, for example, rising temperatures can be observed up to 700 metres below the surface, while in the Pacific the warming is seen only up to 100m down.
Only the greenhouse models replicated the changes that have been observed in practice. "The fact that this has gone on in different ways gives us the chance to figure out who did it," Dr Barnett said.
"All the potential culprits have been ruled out except one.
"This is perhaps the most compelling evidence yet that global warming is happening right now, and it shows that we can successfully simulate its past and its likely future evolution. The statistical significance of these results is far too strong to be merely dismissed and should wipe out much of the uncertainty about the reality of global warming."
Dr Barnett said the results, which are about to be submitted for publication in a major peer-reviewed journal, should put further pressure on the Bush Administration to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, which came into force on Wednesday. "It is now time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to reevaluate and see if it would be to their advantage to join," he said.
"We have got a serious problem ahead of us. The debate is not have we got a clear global warming signal, the debate is what we are going to do about it."
In a separate study, also presented to the conference, a team led by Ruth Curry of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Connecticut has established that 20,000 square kilometres of freshwater ice melted in the Arctic between 1965 and 1995.
Further melting on this scale could be sufficient to turn off the ocean currents that drive the Gulf Stream, which keeps Britain up to 6C warmer than it would otherwise be. "It is taking the first steps, the system is moving in that direction," Dr Curry said.
"The new ocean study, taken together with the numberous validations of the same models in the atmosphere, portends far broader changes. Other parts of the world will face similar problems to those expected, and being observed now, in the western US.
"The skill demonstrated by the climate models in handling the changing planetary heat budget suggests that these scenarios have a high enough probability of actually happening that they need to be taken seriously by decision-makers."
February 18, 2005
New proof that man has caused global warming
/* Global variables that are used for "image browsing". Used on article pages to rotate the images of a story. */ var sImageBrowserImagePath = ''; var aArticleImages = new Array(); var aImageDescriptions = new Array(); var aImageEnlargeLink = new Array(); var aImageEnlargePopupWidth = '500'; var aImageEnlargePopupHeight = '500'; var aImagePhotographer = new Array(); var nSelectedArticleImage = 0; var i=0;
From Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent, in Washington
The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the world’s oceans.
The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new research has revealed.
The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday.
"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."
In the study, Dr Barnett’s team examined more than seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans, collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and compared the patterns with those that are predicted by computer models of various potential causes of climate change.
It found that natural variation in the Earth’s climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. Models based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations almost precisely.
"What absolutely nailed it was the greenhouse model," Dr Barnett told the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Washington. Two models, one designed in Britain and one here in the US, got it almost exactly. We were stunned. They did it so well it was almost unbelieveable."
Climate change has affected the seas in different ways in different parts of the world: in the Atlantic, for example, rising temperatures can be observed up to 700 metres below the surface, while in the Pacific the warming is seen only up to 100m down.
Only the greenhouse models replicated the changes that have been observed in practice. "The fact that this has gone on in different ways gives us the chance to figure out who did it," Dr Barnett said.
"All the potential culprits have been ruled out except one.
"This is perhaps the most compelling evidence yet that global warming is happening right now, and it shows that we can successfully simulate its past and its likely future evolution. The statistical significance of these results is far too strong to be merely dismissed and should wipe out much of the uncertainty about the reality of global warming."
Dr Barnett said the results, which are about to be submitted for publication in a major peer-reviewed journal, should put further pressure on the Bush Administration to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, which came into force on Wednesday. "It is now time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to reevaluate and see if it would be to their advantage to join," he said.
"We have got a serious problem ahead of us. The debate is not have we got a clear global warming signal, the debate is what we are going to do about it."
In a separate study, also presented to the conference, a team led by Ruth Curry of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Connecticut has established that 20,000 square kilometres of freshwater ice melted in the Arctic between 1965 and 1995.
Further melting on this scale could be sufficient to turn off the ocean currents that drive the Gulf Stream, which keeps Britain up to 6C warmer than it would otherwise be. "It is taking the first steps, the system is moving in that direction," Dr Curry said.
"The new ocean study, taken together with the numberous validations of the same models in the atmosphere, portends far broader changes. Other parts of the world will face similar problems to those expected, and being observed now, in the western US.
"The skill demonstrated by the climate models in handling the changing planetary heat budget suggests that these scenarios have a high enough probability of actually happening that they need to be taken seriously by decision-makers."
Proof? Evidence? Um, evidence does not mean proof; it only means evidence.
Have a link to the actual research? Or do we just take the second or third hand info as is?
I found this NASA link and this from UCAR.
Last edited:
Um, I like how the Times threw in a pic displaying a conspicuously smoke-billowing MV. Just can't avoid a bit of sensationalism, can they?